HELLO!!!

LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF

Ian Josephs M.A. (Oxon)

Telephone me in France: 0033626875684 for free legal advice!Remember to ask me, and I will ring you straight back at my expense! Or, contact me by email ian@monaco.mc . If you give me a contact phone number from any country you like
no matter where you live. (MOBILES ARE OK !) and TIMES available to receive a call I can phone you back also at my expense.(Use a public phone box if you do not wish to reveal your number).I do not accept attachments as they are time consuming and may contain viruses;please use regular email or fax documents to 0033493220967.For my replies, I type emails with one finger so in complicated cases I prefer where possible to telephone you as it takes a lot less time to advise you this way ! HOW TO USE THIS SITE ! 1:-If you want to learn about the tyranny of social services and the family courts in the UK READ ON ! 2:-If

social services are already bothering you or even threatening you CLICK ON ABOVE AND SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE GOLDEN RULES !
3:-If the "SS" have already taken your children or grandchildren skip straight to the golden rules and the list of contacts plus how to represent yourself ,then turn to the section "get your children back" and note the parts that apply in your case.

It would help my record keeping if you sent me an email stating VERY simply your first name and those of your children or grand children plus their ages,your contact phone number(mobiles are ok), when the ss took them or threatened to take them ,and the reasons given by the judge or ss in two or three words only,eg emotional abuse,learning difficulties,domestic violence,drug or

alcohol problems,unexplained injuries,failure to thrive,personality disorders, cluttered house,missed appointments,absences from school,dirty children's clothes etc etc Please note ,I am not a solicitor or barrister but I do have a law degree from Oxford University and advise hundreds of parents every year (free of charge) on how to fight and sometimes win against social services . IMPORTANT:-I am a businessman with language schools in Monaco and elsewhere.See www.regencyschool.com and www.hli.co.uk!! The "SS" have never hurt me my family or my friends,but I hate injustice and hate even more the secret courts that steal children from loving parents. I first encountered these courts as a Kent County Councillor in 1960-66 applying for the discharge of care orders on behalf of parents in court against my own Council(before the Children Act 1989 stopped lay advisors from doing this) and I never lost a case!(see "History" later on ) That is why I NEVER take any money from parents for expenses or anything else. I often refund parents "travel expenses" so that PREGNANT MOTHERS can escape to Ireland where there is NO forced adoption.(no passports needed). If anyone you consult tries to charge you MONEY to help you,please pay them NOTHING as a lot of crooks operate on the internet taking cash from those who can least afford it ,and doing NOTHING in return !

ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!! STOP PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME !!

My name is IAN JOSEPHS.I repeat again,UK Social services have never hurt me, my family, or my friends, but their wicked abuse of power has simply shocked me into action!"Forced adoption" too often legally deprives healthy,happy,children from all contact with their loving parents,brothers,sisters,grandparents,and other relatives for the rest of their lives! The UK is the ONLY country in Europe(apart from Croatia and perhaps Portugal) to tolerate "forced adoption" (adoption of children against the will of the parents). Adoption is a wonderful thing for abandoned and neglected children if it is TRULY VOLUNTARY but is a wicked deed that should be severely punished if forced through the courts against the will and frantic opposition of loving parents.Worse still these parent VICTIMS are ruthlessly gagged !!Yes,here in the UK secret courts jail parents who dare to protest publicly when social workers take their babies at birth and arrange for them to be adopted by strangers.ONLY in the UK and NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD do they GAG parents whose children

have been" confiscated"Some "lucky" mothers who discovered where their adopted children were living have been jailed for ringing the doorbell,waving at the children in the street, or sending them a Xmas card (three real cases ,and 3 mothers jailed!)on the grounds that they were undermining the forced adoption and committing a breach of the peace Forgive me if I repeat myself too often in this "expos" of the "SS" and the family courts,but the average person simply cannot believe that such things happen in "democratic Britain".Well,believe me they do! Repetition is necessary to reinforce your belief ! The UK is the ONLY country in Europe (apart from Croatia and perhaps Portugal) to tolerate the barbaric practice of forced adoption.The severing of all contact FOR LIFE between children and their birth parents .In effect a LIFE sentence without the opportunity of being heard by a jury, often imposed on parents who have committed no crime but who are said to be a risk to their children following predictions by overpaid charlatans working closely with the local authority. Yes the UK family courts then mete out "PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME" The ONLY people in the UK who are punished without crime are parents whose children have been "confiscated" by the hundreds, because those children are said to be "at risk" of emotional abuse!. The Family Courts presume parents are guilty of abusing or neglecting their children unless they can prove their innocence (which rarely happens !). Even worse the UK is the ONLY country in the world to GAG parents who wish to protest publicly when their children are taken. The right of all citizens to protest publicly against what they perceive to be oppression by the State is what separates democracy from tyranny. Long may it remain so ! Are there really parents who are punished by the State when they have committed no crimes?? YES !!The ONLY people in the UK who suffer this injustice are parents whose children are taken away after so called "experts" make predictions of the future such as "risk of emotional abuse".Most mothers would receive better and fairer treatment from the court if they killed their children (and benefited from the protection of criminal procedure) rather than tangle with the cold ferocity that demolishes 99.75%(judicial statistics) of the unfortunate parents who appear before the stern "establishment" judges sitting in our UK family courts.In other European countries such as France,Spain,and Italy,where "the family" is almost "sacred" they just cannot believe the barbarity of social workers in the UK when they take newborn babies from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse",a

concept completely unknown on the continent .Indeed the whole idea of "emotional abuse" is met with incredulity! The three essential reforms we need are:1:- Freedom of SPEECH for parents at all times. 2:- Final hearings to be heard by JURIES 3:-An end to the Punishment of parents who have not committed any CRIME.

PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME !!!

The nightmare begins when social workers act like a second police force PUNISHING PARENTS who have NOT committed any crime. They do this by obtaining an emergency protection order "ex parte"( in the parents' absence)to take away children into foster care. They claim these children have "suffered emotional harm"or worse still are "at risk of emotional harm" ! On this basis an order is nearly always granted without any problem by a "friendly" magistrate. They then pressurise the parents with threats that if they do not "do what we tell you"or if they dare to discuss "the case" with their children or tell them "we love you and miss you"during "contact" the social services will stop contact and maybe never let those parents see their children again etc .Parents are GAGGED when speaking to their own children ! Even worse,when issuing interim care orders the "Family courts" have become "Kangaroo courts" . Interim care orders are issued on the basis of written statements from social workers and "hired experts" that cannot be questioned or disputed because these documents are not shown to the parents and in any case the authors are nearly always absent from court ! The parents' are rarely allowed to testify as not only the judge but also their own lawyers nearly always stop them from speaking !If they do by some miracle manage to testify, what they say is not only disbelieved it is almost always completely ignored !The interim care orders are usually renewed automatically every month for nearly a year before a final care hearing is held ,during which time the unfortunate children are isolated from their parents(except for very limited supervised contact periods) wondering what they have done wrong ! Legal aid lawyers,known in the trade as professional losers usually advise clients to go along with social servicesearning their fees the easy way ! Those few parents who succeed in winning and recovering their

children are nearly always those who represent themselves.When this happens however judgements ,court documents,reports from experts, and position statements are often shown to parents at the last moment or not shown to them at all !As a consequence ,when local authorities apply for an interim care order in the family courts only one in 400 is refused !(official judicial statistics), so what chance do most of the unfortunate parents have?

To cap it all social workers only too often, go round schools and friends of parents and,by their loaded questions spread harmful rumours about the parents.The unfortunate parents however are warned (quite wrongly in fact) that they are forbidden to talk to ANYBODY about their case (they actually CAN talk to individuals for advice and support) .Those bold enough to protest publicly are jailed for their impertinence (200+ per year according to Harriet Harman answering a Parliamentary question, when she was minister for children). Yes parents are legally GAGGED yet again, when their babies and toddlers are taken to protect the "privacy "of families and children !Grandparents,aunts,and uncles are excluded from the court in order (believe it or not !) to protect the children's privacy ! Social services however have no need to respect this "privacy" as they frequently advertise for adoption the children they have taken, with colour photos and first names in the Daily Mirror and other periodicals,much to the horror of parents when they see their offspring paraded for the public" to choose" like pedigree dogs! Eventually many of these children get adopted ("Forced Adoption")and their siblings are often split up into different families despite the pleas of their parents who have been judged to pose a "risk of emotional abuse"to these babies and young children.Alone in Europe,only the UK tolerates forced adoption of children against the wishes of parents in court.In most cases,the parents never see or hear from their children for the rest of their lives,so these children are cut off for ever not only from their parents,but also their grandparents,aunts,uncles,cousins and quite often also from their own brothers and sisters ! The parents (and their children) are in effect punished not for something they have done but for something some so called "expert" (using a crystal ball?) thinks they might do in the future !Babies and young children who have been battered and physically abused (like baby P) are "poor adoption material" and no use to social workers hoping to "hit" their adoption

targets,(PAF C23 Ofsted) so they are more often than not left to die alone....Children however, with just ONE unexplained injury such as a bruise,a burn, or a fractured arm but with no prior record of abuse or injuries still make good adoption material and are seized for that purpose even when there is no evidence that the parents were in any way responsible. IT'S "ONE STRIKE AND YOU ARE OUT".That is the cry of the "SS" and is typical of the way that "justice" is served up at our UK family courts ! This is the REALITY of what actually happens to parents falling foul of the "system".Is there a conspiracy?No need!Lawyers,fosterers,"experts",adoption agencies,social workers,and even judges all do very nicely out of the present system and have no need to conspire ,but naturally they do unite to resist, to COVER UP any mistakes they may have made if anyone threatens to "rock the boat" ! What reforms should the government introduce?Well,the social workers in "child protection" must be ordered to pass their enforcement functions back to the police, who should only remove children if crimes have been committed by parents that could adversely affect their capacity to care for the children. The family courts should adopt the rules of evidence that govern procedures in the criminal courts where fair and just rules of evidence now prevail.That is how it used to be before the Children Act 1948 when police and criminal courts(not social workers and family courts) dealt with removal of children from cruel or neglectful parents, and it worked much better !Parents would have the right to question their "accusers",demand final hearings by juries, and would no longer be gagged.Parents should no longer threatened with jail if they complain publicly when their children are taken,and should no longer be threatened with having their contact sessions with their children in care stopped if they dare to discuss their case with them.The Children Act 1989 should be amended to remove all gagging of parents wishing to discuss publicly matters concerning their children or to talk about their case with those children.There would then at last be an excellent chance that most of these injustices would be eliminated. Yes family courts should be criminal courts and children should only be taken from parents if they have committed or been charged with a crime.At the moment however babies are snatched at birth from perfectly innoffensive and law abiding parents for "risk of emotional abuse".This accusation is the social worker's"favourite"as it is quite impossible for parents to prove their innocence when so called "experts" predict what they might or might not do at some time in the future ! Incredibly,mothers lose their children to forced adoption not for anything they HAVE done but for what some overpaid charlatans (reading tea leaves or tarot cards?) predict they might do ! No

you couldn't make it up !

Yes it's punishment without crime !!

Even the actual family court proceedings are fatally flawed . Only too often parents resisting a local authority application for an interim care order are faced with reports from social workers and "experts" who do not come to court and so cannot be questioned.Barristers read these reports as though they are themselves witnesses and present these reports made by absent officials and experts as though they are "gospel truth" . When the parents contradict them with live evidence in court the hearsay evidence coming from the local authority barristers is nearly always preferred !Furthermore,when the local authority employs an "expert" to rule on parents' mental state,non accidental injury to a child,or parents' general parenting skills those parents are routinely refused by a judge the opportunity to call experts of their own to counter those "expert opinions" .The result is that parents are then faced with reports by these experts who rarely turn up in court to be questioned. The parents are then informed that they have no qualifications so when the local authority's expert says they are not fit parents,then that is the evidence that must be believed ! The theory is that "adoption targets"(still very much in force via Ofsted PAF C23) are set to encourage social workers to find children languishing in care for years new permanent homes. The reality however is that adopters want babies not older children so social workers seize babies and toddlers to be put into care and from there into forced adoption with the agreement of compliant judges so that targets can be met ! Disgracefully in our family courts all the rules of evidence are casually "thrown out of the window". SHAME on our family court legal system and all those who support it !
EXAMPLES OF HOW RULES OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN DISCARDED IN THE FAMILY COURTs WHEN GRANTING INTERIM CARE ORDERS. 1:- Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents.Family and friends of parents are routinely excluded from the court but groups of social workers are allowed to stay in the court to listen to their colleague's testimony whether they are witnesses or not. 2:- Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them.Judgements,reports from experts,and position statements are either witheld or given to parents at the last minute (too late to read and analyse them properly). 3:- Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when "experts" and Doctors have testified against them.If parents record contacts with their children, or interviews with experts or social workers judges routinely refuse permission for these recordings to be heard yet they always allow recordings and video evidence to be heard if produced by police or social workers. 4:-Parents whose children have been taken are routinely and wrongly told that they may not talk to ANYONE about their case. 5:-Parents are jailed if they protest publlcly when their children are taken.They are also jailed for "breach of the peace" or "harassment" if they dare to trace and then contact their own children after

adoption.Parents are therefore" twice gagged" contrary to the Human Rights Act ,Article 10 entitling all persons "freedom of expression",ie freedom of speech. 6:-Local authority barristers in court often read out statements from absent persons as though they are themselves witnesses but they cannot be questioned. 7:- Most solicitors refuse to let their clients speak and then agree to all care orders demanded by social services. 8:-Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves even though they have the right to do so;Their evidence and their arguments are usually ignored in the judgements. 9;-Parents representing themselves are often given an hour or two's notice to appear in court but solicitors are given weeks ! 10:-Parents are punished for "risk" ie not what they have done but for what they might do in the future! "Risk of emotional abuse" is favourite because there is no legal definition of this and it is usually impossible for parents to defend themselves against "predictions" by so called "experts". 11:-Judges give social workers the power to withold parent's contact with their children" in care" as a punishment for saying they love them and miss them or that they are fighting to get them back .They use this power to gag parents and force them into complete submission ! 12:-Parents are in effect condemned for offences against their children on "probabilities" 51% instead of beyond reasonable doubt. 13:-Parents who were themselves in care or who were abused in childhood are often judged unfit to be parents as a result. 14:-Parents often forfeit their children for "failing to engage with professionals" 15:-Parents faced with forced adoption lose their children for life, without being allowed a hearing by jury. 16:-Under the UN Convention on children's rights children have a RIGHT to be heard in court but are usually denied that right. 17:-Solicitors routinely tell client parents to agree to interim care orders or they risk never seeing their children again.A lie ! 18:-Social workers are legally obliged to place children with relatives if possible but either ignore this or find pretexts to fail them on assessments 19:-Human rights to free speech and freedom of movement are breached by gagging orders and confiscating parents' passports. 20:-Parents are routinely forbidden to call witnesses on their behalf contrary to human rights.Family and friends are wrongly prevented from entering the court.

The "SS" and family court judges often accuse PARENTS of being paranoid and of believing that there is an absurd conspiracy to take their children. The reply,should always be that in common with so many government employees social workers and

experts never like to admit that they were wrong .They therefore are willing to do anything and say anything just to COVER UP the mistakes they have made in nearly every case !Their behaviour is only too often, both dictatorial and shocking as three senior judges confirm ! Extract from "The Times" April 13th 2010 ! "Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7095791.ece Family torn apart in 15-minute court case by Judge James Orrell ...

Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal "I am completely aghast at this case.There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing,because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.Once you have lost a child it is very difficult to get a child back." The hearing above lasted only 15 minutes after a doctor "expressed the opinion" that bruising in the ear of one of the three children looked as though it was caused by pinching .The parents were not allowed to give any evidence!Their three children had all been forcibly removed until they were ordered to be returned by Lord Justice Thorpe on appeal. Some will criticise this site for my so called "extreme views".If the three family judges above desribe the family courts respectively as "shocking","more like Mao's China and Stalin's Russia,and "prejudiced against parents" who am I to contradict them? !! 1:- The UK is the ONLY State in the WORLD that gags parents whose children have been taken by social services 2:- The UK is the ONLY State in Europe (except Croatia and possibly Portugal) to permit the horror of "forced adoption". 3:-The UK is the ONLY State in Europe to allow "Punishment without crime" ie the taking of children by social services from parents who have not committed any criminal offence. 4:- The UK is the ONLY State in Europe taking children for "emotional abuse" and

worse still "risk of emotional abuse" (on the basis of predictions from overpaid charlatans that one day parents just might harm their children) 5:- The UK is the ONLY State in Europe to censor conversation between parents and children in care.Children are left wondering what they have done wrong as parents are forbidden to explain the situation, or discuss the court case in any way. Phrases such as "I love you and I miss you" are also forbidden under the threat of contact beeing stopped immediately if the parents "transgress." Children naturally begin to think their parents might not love them or want them back anymore. All this is a disgrace to democracy and a disgrace to freedom that could be instantly rectified by legislation to make all the above five practices illegal and to allow parents threatened with permanent separation from their children to demand a hearing by a jury.

A WORD OF WARNING from Lord Denning, rated (by some) as the finest judge of the 20th century. "Every court should be open to every subject of the Queen. I think it is one of the essentials of justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense, is on trial to see that he does his job properly. Reporters are there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and judges behave themselves. Children's courts should also be open. Names should be kept out but the public should know what happens to the child and proceedings should never be conducted behind closed doors...... "
After all can anyone answer this question? HOW CAN SOCIAL SERVICES JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL OF HUNDREDS OF BABIES AT BIRTH FOR "RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE", AND AFTER HEARINGS IN SECRET COURTS, THEIR FORCED ADOPTION BY STRANGERS? You don't believe this happens? Just read this SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

LEADING ARTICLE!!

The unnatural justice of secret family courts

The Sunday Telegraph, 26/08/2007 The Sunday Telegraph highlights today yet another case in which a mother has been threatened with losing her baby to local authority care. The mother had not shown any sign at all of harming her child, for her baby has not yet been born. The local authority, however, is convinced that there is a possibility that she might harm the child. To most people, it will seem grotesquely unjust that any child could be removed on such a basis. Northumberland County Council is, however, far from unusual in acting in this way.The courts have endorsed the removal of hundreds of children from their natural parents on the basis that there is a possibility that they might "abuse their child emotionally". Some of those forcible adoptions are appalling acts of injustice. How can such things happen in Britain? The answer is simple: the courts that enforce the taking away of children from parents on local authority say-so operate in secret. It is illegal to reveal their proceedings, or even their judgments. --------------------------------------------------The above extract from the Sunday Telegraph is from but one of many articles from respected journalists confirming what I myself have alleged concerning the "SS" and "forced adoptions";

Why do the "SS" act like they do?Well like most "public servants" social workers NEVER admit to the public that they have made a specific mistake!.
Once they have decided to take a baby or young child away from its parents and into "care", no matter what new evidence comes out in favour of the parents, they still stick to their original decision . When possible they pursue their instructions from the government to increase the number of adoptions(in order to avoid the expense of paying thousands of foster parents an average of 400/week per child !).Their prime interest then, is NOT the welfare of the baby or child but WINNING their case in court against parents who dispute their decisions .The sad sequel is that the judges nearly always back them up regardless of the evidence of parents who more often than not, have never been accused let alone convicted of any crime! !
It is true that accredited journalists can now be admitted at the discretion of the judges ,who however ban them from any cases likely to be controversial. Even when they are admitted they

cannot print names of witnesses or word for word details of proceedings.

It is however the gagging of parents not the media that is so unjust. Protest can only be effective when like rape victims parents (and teenage children who wish to express their views) can shed anonymity and campaign under their own names The new rules (just like the previous rules) state that parties to a case can give information in confidence to individuals who can offer them advice OR support Despite this judges still regularly warn parents whose children have been removed by their courts NOT to discuss their cases with anybody! They pretend to protect the privacy of parents and children by gagging them both ! You couldn't make it up !

Yes,they gag parents to "protect their privacy" but allow local authorities to advertise their precious children for adoption in the Daily Mirror,and other periodicals, with first names ,colour photographs,birth dates and ethnic origins rather like pedigree dogs ,who of course do not need privacy ! HYPOCRITES ALL ! These are the ten reforms advocated by the Times newspaper and who could seriously disagree?
WE believe that wholesale reforms are needed, which can be summed up in ten points: 1. Open family courts to the press in all but exceptional circumstances (as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee). 2.Let any parent or carer accused of abuse call any witnesses they need in their defence. At the moment, they are routinely refused permission to do so. 3.Give automatic permission for parents who are refused legal aid to get a lay adviser to help them present their case. This is routinely refused. 4.Remove the restrictions that prevent families from talking about their case (as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee). 5.Review the definition of emotional abuse across local authorities, to make sure that it cannot become a catch-all for overzealous officials. 6.Provide an automatic right for parents to receive copies of case conference notes and all evidence used against them in court, just as they would in a criminal trial. 7.Create an independent body to oversee the actions of social services, with proper sanctions. If that body is to be the General Social Care Council, make it easier for parents to go directly to that body rather than having to face delays from the local authority. 8.Let children in care waive their right to privacy if they wish to speak out. For gagging children is surely not consistent with promoting their welfare.

9.Restructure CAFCASS, the Family Court Advisory Service, from being an organisation that reports on the parents to the courts to one that actively promotes the parenting needs of children. The primary focus should cease to be assisting the court process. It should be diverting parents away from contested hearings into the making of parenting plans. 10.Review the recent legal aid cut-backs that are deterring lawyers from taking on these complex family cases. It is quite wrong that desperate parents are unable to find a lawyer to help them in their time of need.

Child protection: MPs must act on the scandal of seized children

Britain's child protection system is off the rails, and only the politicians who built it can fix it, says Christopher Booker By Christopher Booker The Sunday Telegraph 30 Oct 2010
Britain's social workers took a beating again last week. On the orders of the children's minister, Tim Loughton, full versions of two harrowing case reviews of the Baby P tragedy were published. They found fault not only with Haringey's social workers but with lawyers, the police and health professionals, Under pressure from social workers, reviews of two similar cases in Yorkshire are still being kept under wraps. Meanwhile, an Ofsted report found that 119 children died or suffered serious injury last year through social workers' failure to intervene. Still largely hidden from view, however, is that other scandal, in its way just as disturbing, in which the failure of our child protection system is the very opposite: the seizure of thousands of children a year from loving homes, for no good reason. In recent months, as I have followed dozens of these cases and been briefed on many more by such experts as John Hemming, the MP who runs the Justice for Families campaign, and Ian Josephs, the former councillor who has helped hundreds of families through his Forced Adoption website, a startlingly consistent picture has emerged. What follows is not based on exceptional cases but on the typical workings of a system which has gone horrifyingly off the rails. For parents who fall foul of this system, often on no more evidence than malicious hearsay, the first shock is to find themselves treated like dangerous criminals. To seize children, social workers seem able to enlist the unquestioning support of the police, who arrive mob-handed, six or eight at a time, beating down doors, tearing babies from their mothers' arms, holding parents in custody for up to 36 hours while their children are removed into foster care.

The parents must then wrestle with a Kafka-esque system rigged against them in every way. They find themselves in courts where every normal principle of British justice has been stood on its head. Social workers may give written evidence to a judge which the parents aren't allowed to see. The most outrageous hearsay evidence may be accepted by the court without the parents even being allowed to cross-examine on it. A key part is played by evidence from supposed "experts", psychiatrists or paediatricians who may be paid up to 35,000 for their reports, and who receive regular work from the social workers involved. Parents are forbidden to call their own independent experts to challenge a case made against them. They are, all too often, pressured into being represented by lawyers who, again, work regularly for the council, who fail to put their case and who turn out to be just part of the same system. Parents may be forbidden to testify on their own behalf, but must listen for hours, even days, to everyone else involved including their own lawyers putting what amounts to a case for the prosecution. The guardian appointed to represent the interests of the child may never have met the child and merely endorses whatever the social workers say. Not surprisingly, these bizarre practices are so geared to the interests of a corrupted system that, in the latest year for which we have figures (2008), of 7,340 applications for care orders made by social workers, only 20 were refused. Meanwhile, the children themselves are handed over to foster homes, which receive 400 a week or 20,000 a year for each child, and where many are intensely unhappy and not infrequently abused. Foster carers and social workers routinely conspire to tell bewildered children that their parents neither love them nor want them back. Children and parents meet at rigorously supervised "contact sessions", where any expression of affection or attempt to discuss why the children have been taken from home may be punished by termination of the session or denial of further contact. The purpose of all this, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, is partly to keep in being the vast fostering industry, run by dozens of agencies, often owned by ex-social workers, which also receive 20,000 a year for each child they place. Of course, there are many good and responsible foster parents, but statistics show that children in care do very much worse on almost every count, from health to performance in school, than children living with their birth parents. Another purpose of the system is to ensure that as many children as possible are adopted (at a cost of 36,000 per placement), in accordance with Tony Blair's personal commitment a decade ago that the target for adoptions in Britain should rise by 40 per cent. Councils are still receiving millions of pounds a year for meeting adoption targets. Yet virtually none of this reaches the outside world because the system is hidden behind an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. The nominal reason for this is to protect the identity and interests of the children, but secrecy has been so extended that its real aim is to protect the system itself and all those who do so well out of it.

Parents are forbidden to talk to the media or even to their MPs about the injustice they are suffering. Several times in recent months, councils have sought injunctions to prohibit me reporting anything at all about a case, even though no person or even the council itself would be identified. More than once, parents have been threatened with contempt of court and prison if they talk to me or anyone else about how they are being treated. Very occasionally a judge or senior lawyer breaks ranks by speaking out against such abuse of state power, as when one Court of Appeal judge recently compared the conduct of a council's social workers to what went on in "Stalin's Russia or Mao's China". But in general this cruel, dishonest and venal system continues on its way, hidden from view, accountable to nobody but itself. The only people in a position to reform this system fundamentally are those who set it up in the first place under the 1989 Children Act the politicians. But they have, with one or two shining exceptions notably John Hemming walked away from the Frankenstein's monster that Parliament created. It is now up to them to support Mr Hemming and all those horribly maltreated families who are campaigning for one of the most outrageous scandals in Britain today to be brought to an end.

MARCH 2009 - SECOND EDITION NOW AVAILABLE. My book (430 pages) is available at cost price: 11.30 + postage, or here: www.lulu.com

DOWNLOAD FREE OF CHARGE! by clicking

If you don't have a credit card you can buy a copy directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order payable to Ian Josephs for 14.00 (this includes postage) to:

Ian Josephs HLI 20 Avenue de Fontvieille MC 98000 Monaco April 2009 - A SHORT EDITION of my book (166 pages) is now also available at cost
price: 5.74 + postage (or download for free) by clicking here. Again, you can also buy this directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order for 8.50 to the Monaco address above. "SOPHIE" has published a book detailing her personal experiences and the link is here !http://www.mediafire.com/?igb0f758y7ed677

Also available as a digital download from Amazon is the recent book Abduction by author and former Member of Parliament Robert Kilroy-Silk.
You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-

Statutory Instruments
Children Act 1987 section 97 97 Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings. E+W (1)Rules made under section 144 of the M1Magistrates Courts Act 1980 may make provision for a magistrates court to sit in private in proceedings in which any powers under this Act [F1or the Adoption and Children Act 2002] may be exercised by the court with respect to any child. (2)No person shall publish [F2to the public at large or any section of the public] any material which is intended, or likely, to identify (a)any child as being involved in any proceedings before [F3the High Court, a county court or] a magistrates court in which any power under this Act [F1or the Adoption and Children Act 2002] may be exercised by the court with respect to that or any other child; or (b)an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings.

The Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2009 - Final (para,11.4) The Family Proceedings Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2009 - Final (para 21.T)

Despite the new rules the judges simply exclude the media from controversial cases

as the very typical example below shows !

COURT 7
Before DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE HILLIER Tuesday, 26 May, 2009 At 10 o'clock Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers FD07D05980 At half past 10 FD09D00226 At 11 o'clock FD08D04833(NOT OPEN TO THE MEDIA) !! At 12 o'clock FD08P02429 At 2 o'clock FD08D04757(NOT OPEN TO THE MEDIA) !! At 3 o'clock FD07D03244

In these courts happy loving families are ruthlessly split up to feed the adoption "juggernaut" .An adult teenager was recently told by a judge in the family court ,"Your baby sister is no longer your sister because she has been adopted so you will never see her again !" The following summary of the problems with social services and the family courts together with the remedies that could and should solve them can be read in a short version as follows:PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME
The sad fact is that there is NO justice in the family courts at all for parents whose children have been snatched for "forced adoption and who are GAGGED with threats of prison if they protest publicly.It is not a matter of a few isolated cases going wrong. Nearly ALL contested cases go wrong as courts are so biased against parents that only one in 400 care orders are refused ! Legal aid lawyers(professional losers!) "earn" their fees the easy way by rarely contesting interim care orders and telling their client parents not to speak or sometimes not to attend court at all ! That way the children remain in care under an interim care order for about a year and are allowed very limited and heavily censored contact with their parents who are once again GAGGED !

Most of the evidence presented by the local authority consists of written reports from social workers and "experts" who rarely come to court to be questioned and worse still these reports are rarely shown to the parents! If by some miracle the parents do get to speak their evidence is inevitably rejected in favour of that presented by a barrister (acting like a witness instead of a lawyer) on behalf of absent experts !In short all the rules of evidence go out of the window in the family court. There then follows a final care order and "placement for adoption" The lawyers inevitably tell their distraught parent clients quite untruthfully that they are not allowed to appeal ! Happy healthy children are adopted by strangers despite hopeless protests from bewildered parents in courts where judges treat their protestations with disdain !What happens after adoption?Well mothers who have tracked down their children have been JAILED for sending a birthday card or waving at them in the street ! The sooner criminal courts with proper rules of evidence take over family cases involving forced adoption or permanent foster care the better !

Parents are not only gagged to prevent them protesting publicly ,they are also gagged when speaking to their own children in fostercare during limited contact periods! Parents are regularly told that they are forbidden(under pain of having contact stopped altogether) to tell them the truth ,that their parents love them and are fighting in court to get them back.If they dare tell them even "the half" of the true situation the "SS"do stop contact altogether so that the unfortunate children only hear the "SS" version that their mother is too ill to look after them any more,or does not love them any more, or worse still that "mummy has a new baby now and does not need you any more ,so we will find you a lovely forever mummy and daddy."How wicked can they get? And what happened to parents human right to "free speech"?

Kangaroo court
From Wikipaedia:A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. ALL the above applies to family courts when the "SS" apply for an interim care order to remove children from their parents and family to place them with strangers in fostercare !

YES UK FAMILY COURTS ARE KANGAROO COURTS!! I was sent the following by a distressed parent !
"The beginning is a referral. It can be annonymous or non existent but that will start the process off and the social workers will want to come round. Referrals are routinely made by any government establishment, schools, nurseries, libraries and can be for all sorts of small things. Often referrals are made by people you have asked to help you, like domestic violence help lines, child obesity help centres, counselling services, alcoholics annonymous etc. Every government agency has had Child Protection training to help them look out and record anything such as a child wearing old shoes or a child being quiet or disruptive. They will tell you that they believe you and your child will benefit from being on a child protection plan and they will arrange a meeting. The child protection plan will aim to have you taken off the plan after you have been checked every couple of weeks, had a core assessment and had core meetings. A bunch of people you don't know will be there and they will have privately (without you being there) been told that you are a risk to your children. Once the plan is agreed they will start calling the police to make daily spot checks. The police will comment on your demeanor - were you under the influence, crying, is your house tidy etc. They will come round several times a day to check. Eventually you will get annoyed with this and tell them to go away. They will then say you are not cooperation with professionals and are preventing safety checks so they will apply to the court for a care order. At the first hearing you will be asked to sign a Consent Order to produce all your medical and criminal records, allow the Social services to speak to any professional about you or your children (including your bank manager or anyone they want) they will insist on the children staying with a foster carer a couple of nights a week to give you respite where they can have access to the children while you are not there. You will also have to consent to a psychological assessment. You will be told that if you don't consent then the judge will make an interim care order and you won't get your children back that day, they will be collected from their school or nursery immediately after the hearing and taken to stay with strangers. So you sign the Consent Order. A few days later you will be back in court for another hearing. This time the court will order the children be taken into care as a precaution because they need to draw a line in the sand! Now they have got the Consent Order they can start digging into every aspect of your personal life. They will get healthcare records, school records, hospital and doctor records, old

care records if you were ever in care. They will discard everything positive in the records and make a note of anything negative in their Statement to Support a Care Order. Alot of the things noted you will never have known about previously and will never have had a chance to challenge. You will be offered a contested hearing and you will be told that you will get the Local authority statement for you to respond to in time for the hearing. While waiting for the hearing the foster carer will quiz the children on whether they have ever been punished by you or if they have ever felt unhappy or scared. The children will think hard and might come up with examples which will be noted down, notwithstanding that these examples may have been from years before and from the perspective of a very small child. eg. Yes, once my mum smacked me and my mum shouts at me sometimes. Once she told me she would cut my hair off if I get headlice, once I saw her cry etc. These will be noted in the foster carer's daily logs and given to the Local authority to be added to the evidence against you to support the claim that you emotionally abuse your children. On the Friday before the Monday hearing you will be sent the statement from the Local Authority. There will be so many allegations pulled from all your records and you will be in utter shock because it will make you look like an atrocious parent. You won't be able to get legal advice before the hearing cause it's a weekend. You might try to write a statement in response but you are likely to be in a very distressed and nervous state, not know what is going on and in utter shock. At the contested hearing they will say the threshold has been met and therefore only a change in circumstances will get your children out of care. Once the Court has given you an ICO every 28 days you can oppose the renewal of the Interim Care Order. The ICO is normally renewed automatically by consent on the basis that your circumstances have not changed and therefore the threshold is still met. The Judge rarely accepts any submitted change of circumstances as adequate and submitting changes of circumstances is one of their scams to get you to admit that there was something wrong that you need to change. This is normal practice although precedent says that the Judge has to test whether the threshold has been met every 28 days - this NEVER happens. You are able to ask for a hearing every 28 days in which case to present your change in circumstances in opposition to the renewal but the Judge usually just asks you to write in and state what your changes are and then says that it is not enough to justify a hearing! Totally unlawful and illegal if you ask me but that's what happens. You can't appeal an interim Care Order usually because they only last 28 days and it takes longer than that to get to the appeal hearing so by the time you appeal the order has

expired and your appeal will fail. I do believe though that you should be able to argue in your appeal that you should still be able to appeal an expired order because the future orders all depend on the threshold being met for the expired orders as the threshold is not freshly tested. As the threshold is so low any child on this planet will pass it. Ie on the balance of probablity is the child at risk of emotional harm. Of course it is. We live life on Earth. It is an evil destructive place to live. Every child is at risk of emotional harm on the balance of probability. Especially where balance of probability means that any allegation made by a social worker will be fact unless you have evidence to prove it is not fact. How can you get evidence to prove your child will never suffer from emotional harm!! So then they proceed towards a final hearing and send you to all sorts of dodgy corrupt psychologist who is guaranteed to say you are incapable of caring for your child. You will go because you don't know your rights and no one is explaining them to you. You will at first have been offered contact with you children at a rate of 3 hours per week. At the contact your older children will be looking to you to tell them what is going on. You will try to tell them that you are fighting for them but you will be told by the supervisor that you are not allowed to discuss adult issues with the children and are not allowed to tell them anything about the proceedings or show any emotion. The contact sessions are for you to enjoy and if you don't get on and happily enjoy them then you will lose them. Your children will be totally distressed and pissed off and will want to know why you seem so emotionless and happy when they are stuck with strangers. Your younger children will scream uncontrollably whenever you leave after the hour and the supervisor will make allegations that you squeezed or pinched your younger child to make them cry. Then the Local Authority will reduce contact, at first because they haven't got any supervisors available. They will reduce contact to 1 hour a week as soon as possible. This will have a devastating effect on the children and the children will start playing up. you and the children will be under so much pressure to enjoy that one hour a week that it will become impossible, especially when that one hour is the same day you have a court hearing, a solicitors appointment a meeting with the local authority or cafcass where you will be told even more false allegations and so you will go to contact feeling totally wound up and scared about what is happening to you and your children. The LA will then apply for a S34.4 Order because you can't behave appropriately (like some CBBC presenter) in contact. They may make an allegation that you abused your child or the social worker because they know

that on the balance of probability you are guilty unless you have evidence to prove your innocence and as it is their contact centre you won't have any evidence. they also won't let the children give evidence because this is considered to be emotionally abusing the children. You will also be prevented from seeing the children because you have been telling the children you love them and miss them. If your children or you cried or showed emotion during contact this will also be considered to be emotionally harmful/neglectful to the children. You may have shown elements of anger at the social worker in your tone of voice for lying and being abusive but this will show YOUR unstable mental state and therefore your risk to the children so you will be prevented from seeing the children at all by the S34.4. While you were allowed contact the times of contact will have been determined by social services. The times are likely to be in the middle of the day during the week and never on weekends or bank holidays. If you normally worked or studied at those times before the children were taken you will have to give up your job or your studies because if you don't you will lose your children. the Local Authority will not arrange contact at your convenience. It is when they say or not at all. Once you have lost your job and your income you may then lose your house, your car, get into serious debt and this will start allsorts of new problems. If you are lucky to keep your home you may find it difficult to live there because it will be so distressing to see all the children's toys, clothes and empty beds around you. You will miss your children terribly and feel an overbearing sense of loss. You will become depressed and you won't want to associate with your old friends because they all have children and they just want to go to the park and do child orientated things which you will now find heartbreaking, without your children. People that didn't know you will have labeled you as a child abuser and won't be able to look at you or talk to you. Neighbours will think you are trouble because they will remember the police always coming round your house shortly before your children were taken. Your family will have turned against you because the Local Authority will have contacted them in their duty to consider family and made many unfounded allegations against you and presented them with their statement showing you are an atrocious parent. You may have by this time got so depressed and distressed that you have either gone to the doctor for some mind numbing drugs or maybe you will turn to alcohol. You will feel isolated, a failure, empty, depressed and you will be desperately missing your children.

The the Psychologist appointment you agreed to will come through and you will be Psychologically examined. The psychologist will ask you allsorts of questions based on the information provided by the Local Authority and the Guardian. You may show that you are upset about all the false allegations. You might say you think you were treated unfairly. You might cry. Whatever you do the Psychologist will say you have no insight and you are emotionally unstable and recommend that your children are found a permanent placement. Then there will be a final hearing. Anything that has happened over the previous 9 months or so will be added to the social services statement to show that you are unable to care for your children. They will then make a final care order. Once they have a final care order you can only apply to have it discharged on the same impossible change of circumstances every 6 months. But as soon as they get the Care Order they will start adoption proceedings. (the children may have been with prospective adoptive parents under the interim care order as a foster adopter) The children need to be placed for I think 10 weeks before the LA apply for an adoption Order. You can oppose a placement order and an adoption order on a change of circumstances but the change does not need to be significant. However the Judge will ultimately say that the welfare of the child is their priority and go through the welfare checklist. They will always find that it is not in the child's interest to be returned. The LA and guardian will have written a report saying the children have settled with the adoptive family and praise the adoptive family as if they are perfect people from another planet and at the same time they will say that the children have lost their bond with you and repeat all the allegations they made of you. Some of these allegations you will have admitted to under duress because they will have told you 'If you admit to this you can have your children back, or if you admit to this you can see your children'. These allegations will all be fact now because you didn't have the evidence to disprove them and then they will arrange a goodbye contact with clowns and balloons and you will wave goodbye to your children forever, and you will never know what happened to them. Many of these children will then be trafficked to paedophile rings and used in medical experiments. So that's a summary of how it all works. Your job is to stop it!! Don't expect your solicitor to stop it. Your solicitor will always tell you this is normal practice and you don't have grounds for appeal and you won't get legal funding to appeal. You solicitor will always be too busy to make any enquiries and will take a week or more to get back to you.

If you tell your solicitor that you expect them to fight for you because you need justice and there must be something wrong with what they are doing because you love your children, they were healthy, happy, thriving in your care. They were top of their class. Their first health assessment said they were perfect in every way. You solicitor will say you are being unreasonable and will write to the court to come off the court record and discharge your legal aid certificate. Leaving you to fight this horribly unjust system on your own. "

Sunday Telegraph:Christopher Booker Column 16 July 2010

Never in all my years as a journalist have I felt so frustrated as I do over two deeply disturbing stories of apparent injustice which cry out to be reported but which, for legal reasons, I can refer to only in the vaguest terms, This is because to report them as they deserve, and as the victims so desperately wish, would challenge a part of our legal system which has been deliberately shrouded in an almost impenetrabkle veil of secrecy. Two weeks ago I described four examples of what I described as one of the greatest scandals in Britain today the seizing of children by social workers from loving families, on what appears to be the flimsiest and most questionable grounds. The children may then be handed on to foster carers, who can receive up to 400 a week for each child, or are put out for adoption by strangers, in a way which too often leads to intense distress for both the parents and the children involved, One case I referred to concerns a north London couple whose five children were in April seized by social workers from Haringey council and sent into foster care. The mother was pregnant and her baby was born last month. Shortly afterwards, at 3 am, according to her version of what happened, nine police officers and social workers burst into the hospital room where she was lying on a bed breastfeeding, to wrest her baby from her arms with considerable force. They then discovered they had nowhere to take the baby, so it was put in another part of the hospital, where the mother was taken under escort four times a day to breastfeed her child until she was discharged four days later. She has not seen her baby since. Having talked at length to the mother, I found this story so shocking that I put a series of questions to the council, to get their side of the story. The response of Haringey which, since the national furore over its social workers failure to prevent the battering to death of Baby P, has been somewhat sensitive on such matters, was to ask the High Court to rule that I should not be allowed to write about the case at all. Although the court did not go so far, the Sunday Telegraph was reminded of the comprehensive restrictions on reporting such matters, Last week, after spending several hours with the parents, looking at their neat home, the little beds where their children used to sleep and the cot prepared for the baby, I came away more convinced than ever that something had gone very seriously amiss. I found the wife impressive in her detailed account of all that had happened, clearly a devoted mother who feels herself and her children to have been the victims of an extraordinary error - the nature of which, alas, I cannot reveal.

This week two days have been set aside for the mother at last to put her case to a judge, Despite the tragedy that has torn their family apart, the parents have never previously been given any opportunity to challenge the councils version of the story, I only hope the court takes particular care to check out the evidence put before it and that in due course I can report the full story of a case which sheds instructive light on the workings of a system supposedly devised to protect the interests of the children but which too often seems to result in the very opposite, Also this week the fate of another family hangs on another court hearing. This is the story of a couple who last January were rejoicing at the birth of their first child. Some weeks later, concerned by a floppy arm and faint bruising , they took the baby back to the hospital to seek medical advice, This proved to be the start of a nightmare, which led to them being arrested, handcuffed and driven off separately to a police station, where the mother was held for nine hours without food. The father was imprisoned overnight, It emerged that the doctor they saw had reported her suspicion about the childs injuries to Coventry social workers. The couple were put on police bail, ordering them to surrender their passports and only allowing them to sleep in one of two named houses (the other being the fathers family home). But because no charges had been brought, the social workers allowed the baby into the care of its Irish grandmother, a respected primary school headmistress. To avoid the baby being seized, she took it to her family home in Dublin, where it is supported by a band of relatives with the approval of Irish social services, Determined not to be thwarted, Coventrys social workers then asked the Irish courts to rule in a case to be heard this week - that the baby must be sent back to them in England,. The hospital doctor has meanwhile contacted the Irish medical authorities demanding that in no way must they carry out specific medical tests on the baby which might account for its minor injuries. On Thursday I spoke again at length with the mother, who reported that her own police bail had been lifted and that she was therefore free to travel to Ireland. But the childs father has been told that he may face criminal charges for injuring his son, a possibility they find incredible. This will be reported to the Irish court, leading them to fear that their child may be deported to England and that they may never see him again. This kind of thing is now happening so often that another meeting I had last week, in the House of Commons, was with the one politician who has done more than any other to expose what is going on. John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP for Yardley, Birmingham, not only set up the Justice for Families website, which contains details of many similar cases, but recently assembled an official All-Party Group of concerned MPs to campaign for the radical overhaul of a system which seems so horribly off he rails, and too often to be betraying the very principles it was set up to uphold. Not the least startling feature of this system is the secrecy with which it has managed to hide away from the world almost all it gets up to, As is confirmed by Ian Josephs, a remarkable businessman who runs the Forced Adoption website and has helped hundreds of families in similar plight, one of its most glaring flaws is the extent to which aggrieved parents are deprived of any right to put their case, not just to the courts but to anyone who might be able to help them. It is a system hermetically sealed off, in which the fate of parents and children can be decided by an incestuously closed community of social workers, police, lawyers, doctors and other professional experts, who all too often seem to work together in an alliance which seems ruthlessly oblivious to the interests of the families who fall into its clutches. Again and again I

have heard of the misery of children torn from their distraught parents, forced to live unhappily in the hands of inadequate foster carers, and whose only wish is to be returned to those they know and live. The more I learn about this scandal, the more I understand why in April an Appeal Court judge, Lord Aikens, savaged the actions of Devon county council social workers in a forced adoption case as having been more like Stalins Russia or Maos China than the West of England. The councils lawyers were told to read a judgment by Lord Justice Wall, now head of the High Courts Family Division, which condemned Greenwich social workers as enthusiastic removers of children. It is high time the veils of secrecy were ripped from this national outrage, that politicians intervened to call the system to order and that the press was free to bring properly to light family tragedies such as those I have only been allowed to hint at above,

Forced adoption is doubly wicked because it is a "life sentence" where the adopted children are permanently deprived of contact not only with their parents but also with their adult siblings, grandparents,aunts, and uncles . The parents are ruthlessly jailed by secret courts (more than 200 per year) if they dare to protest publicly or reveal identities of any witnesses. Worse still blameless brothers and sisters are more often than not adopted separately and are forced to lose all contact with each other as well as with the rest of their families(grandparents etc) at least until they are 18 and usually for the rest of their lives.The damage done to these children by heartless judges is simply horrendous...... "What about Baby P? " I hear you cry !Well, physically injured children like baby P,Victoria Climb,and others are not good adoption material .They are in any case avoided like the plague if there is a brutal and often drunken boyfriend or stepfather on the premises to intimidate the social workers. Such children are more often than not, callously left to die !Meanwhile social workers move on to easier targets and accuse respectable and more compliant parents (especially single mothers)of posing a "risk of emotional abuse" to their children, and even to their unborn babies !That is how the "SS" work now .
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, May 10th 2010 Christopher Booker writes..... Mother in court over a birthday card Next Wednesday, Maureen Spalek, a spirited and loving mother, will be in Runcorn magistrates court to face a criminal charge of having sent a birthday card to her eight-year-old son having already been arrested and held in a prison cell for 24 hours for the same offence. Mrs Spalek is charged with breaking a court order forbidding her to have any contact with her three children, even though she has an order from another judge explicitly permitting her to

send them birthday and Christmas cards. Yet a few days after she sent her younger son the card, on April 15, she was visited by two police officers who threatened to beat down her door unless she gave them entry. She was then taken to one of Runcorns 30 police cells where she was held in very unpleasant conditions for 24 hours. Mrs Spalek, the former wife of a naval officer, lost her children some years ago after one of her sons was taken to hospital with a broken leg from a bicycle accident. When she complained about the attitude of a doctor who was treating her son, social workers were called in. When she then, in turn, complained about the hostile attitude they had shown to her, the affair escalated to the point where her three children were taken away, on the grounds that she had problems working with professionals even though it was agreed in court that she was an excellent mother, that the children were well-behaved and well-looked-after and that they had suffered no physical or emotional abuse. Two were adopted, one lives with their father. One of the many serious issues not raised in the recent election campaign, because all three parties have agreed not to discuss it, is the growing scandal of the abduction by social workers of children from responsible and loving parents. In too many instances, this gives the impression of a tightly closed system, in which the social workers, who have in the recent past been set adoption targets by central government, are aided and abetted by the police, by certain family court judges and even by those lawyers supposedly acting on behalf of the parents. I shall return to this very disturbing issue after Mrs Spalek's case this week.

This case illustrates a colossal loophole in the family court "secrecy and gagging system" !Any parent that like Maureen commits a minor criminal offence (usually breaking an injunction thus committing contempt of court !) If that parent pleads not guilty and represents him/herself the whole lot can come out in court with no reporting resrictions and can be debated openly !It takes guts to do this but look at the publicity and public outrage that Maureen garnered to help her get contact with her state stolen children ! Are there any "quick fix" solutions that could stop these injustices?There are at least 10 vital reforms needed that are discussed later(see my reform section) but for now I will name the two most important....

1:NO CHILD SHOULD BE FORCIBLY TAKEN INTO CARE FROM A PARENT UNLESS THAT PARENT HAS COMMITTED or HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD. All such cases would then commence in the criminal courts WITH

THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND STANDARDS OF PROOF OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS including the right to ask for a hearing by jury if the possible sentence was severe.If the verdict returned is "not guilty" or if charges were dropped the children should be returned immediately.All I ask is that we give imperfect parents the same legal protections that we at present give to murderers but deny to all those unfortunate enough to appear before the UK "family courts". Meanwhile however civil courts decide........... Any parent who is threatened by a care order or adoption for their child should have the right to a hearing by a jury.Any burglar facing a possible 6 months or more in prison can demand a trial by jury but mothers who risk losing their babies or young children for LIFE to forced adoption are denied this right.No jury would take a newborn baby from a mother for "risk of emotional abuse". At present juries in civil courts decide complicated cases of libel,slander and even city fraud.They would be more than competent to decide whether or not a child should be removed from its parents and they would not be so ready as "establishment" judges to side in nearly every case with social services against parents desperate to keep their beloved children. In 2007 the "SS" applied for 8173 care orders and only 21 were refused !Rubberstamping by "establishment judges"!Time to bring on 12 men (or women)good and true!

2:- Parents and their teenage children are ruthlessly gagged to prevent them revealing their own names, or names of witnesses in the family courts.It is indeed wicked that mothers whose babies are snatched at birth by social services for "risk of emotional abuse " are jailed if they protest publicly and the press are restricted in the same way. Surely parents who have had their children removed should, like rape victims be free to waive anonymity and go public if they so choose?It is outrageous that in our "democracy" hundreds of babies are taken from their mothers at birth and if these mothers identify themselves by public protest they are jailed.(Harriet Harman admitted in parliament to at least 200 parents per year imprisoned by judges at secret family courts. )Not only are parents gagged when children are taken they are gagged again at "contact" visits when they are forbidden to tell their children they love them and miss them or to discuss their court case .If they do not obey contact is cancelled immediately and sometimes stopped permanently.The threat of stopping contact is a weapon that the ss exploit ruthlessly to subdue "difficult" parents. The UK is the only EU member to allow "forced adoption", and the only EU country to gag parents and jail them if they protest publicly.Both "forced adoption" and "the gag" must go ! The imposition of criminal procedures when matters of "public law" are decided in the family courts,including the right to hearings by jury and also the removal of the gag would not need complicated legislation and would

prevent at least 90% of the present injustices.

Mark Harris waved to his daughter; he was handcuffed and jailed! Maureen Spalek sent a birthday card to her son; she was hancuffed and jailed! Sarah white sent an email to her children;she was handcuffed and jailed ! For these so called "serious offences" defying the family courts ,three parents were jailed,but was justice really served? Adoption Targets still exist ! Local authorities are still urged by Ofsted to arrange as many adoptions as possible so as to hit their targets ! See "Early Day Motion" 958 by John Hemmng MP. Hemming, John That this House notes that the Government abolished the adoption target BV163 in April 2008; considers that the Government should have abolished PAF C23 at the same time, a performance indicator that has the same definition; is concerned that Ofsted continues to put pressure on local authorities to increase the number of adoptions; recognises that the only significant way in which this can be done is to increase the adoptions of babies and toddlers; notes that the disparity between Scotland and England in respect of this issue is blatant; and calls on the Department for Children, Schools and Families to stop pressurising local authorities through Ofsted to increase adoptions and to abolish the performance indicator PAF C23.

Adoption system is UK's shameful secret

Britain is the only country in Europe where children are routinely removed from their parents without consent, says Christopher Booker By Christopher Booker Sunday Telegraph 10 Oct 2009
This week I return to one of the most disturbing stories this column has ever reported. It began on a morning in April 2007 when the home of a respectable middle-class family in Sussex was overrun by 18 policemen and two RSPCA officials, supposedly looking for guns. When the father, a professional dog breeder, volubly protested, he and his pregnant wife were arrested and handcuffed, to the horror of their watching five-year old daughter (whom I call, for legal reasons, "Jenny").

East Sussex social workers were then called to remove the little girl. Her mother had a miscarriage while in custody and returned to an empty home, left in chaos. Jenny has remained in foster care ever since, and despite her parents pleading for her return through 74 legal hearings, the ruling by a family court judge last March that she be put out for adoption was upheld in July by the Appeal Court. Having now seen further documents relating to this saga, I can understand why the family's GP wrote that in 33 years as a doctor he had never come across "such an appalling case of injustice". The first document was her parents' careful chronology of every step in the story, including transcriptions of many of their telephone conversations and meetings with Jenny, invariably under strict surveillance by social workers or the foster carer. The dominant impression from these recordings is of Jenny's desperation to be reunited with her parents, and of an increasingly distraught child who cannot understand what has been done to her. The parents claim that pressure was put on her constantly to say that she didn't want to see them again. Why did the family court judge not allow this evidence to be heard in court, although she did admit accounts of these "contacts" by the social workers? A second document is the judgment by Mr Justice Bodey in the Appeal Court confirming that Jenny must be put out for adoption. No evidence had been produced that her parents ever caused Jenny physical or mental harm. His ruling centred on two points. One was evidence that her home was a mess on the day of the raid, although those who knew the house well testify that it was normally clean and tidy. The other was that, when the family's home was invaded by 18 policemen (a figure confirmed by one policeman in evidence), the father verbally abused them in colourful fashion (but didn't attack them physically). Are these really adequate grounds for tearing a child and her parents permanently apart? A third document is the book Forced Adoption by Ian Josephs, a businessman who has taken an active interest in the removal of children from their parents by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. He acted in part of the Jenny case as a "Mackenzie friend", that is, an informal assistant and adviser. Mr Josephs shows that Britain is almost the only country in Europe which routinely allows children to be separated from parents without their consent. Indeed, he reproduces a press release put out in 2003 by Hammersmith & Fulham Council boasting how, under a Local Public Service Agreement, it had received a reward of 500,000 from central government for hitting its target of 101 adoptions in the year. This particular, highly controversial scheme of cash bonuses has, thankfully, since been abandoned. The impression given by these documents supports the GP's view that this is an "appalling case of injustice". Social workers, lawyers and judges seem enmeshed in a system heavily skewed towards putting children out for adoption by a process so shrouded in secrecy that it seems designed more to protect the system itself than the interests of the child. Most alarming of all is that there seems no one with the authority to intervene in cases such as Jenny's, where that system appears to have left both a loving family and justice horribly betrayed.

Britain's forced adoptions: the hidden scandal we can't ignore

Our social workers normally hit the headlines when some Baby P-type horror story comes to light, showing how they failed to intervene when a child was so maltreated by its parents that it died.
By Christopher Booker Daily Telegraph 7th Aug 2010 What don't usually make the news, however, are the hundreds of cases when the social workers' failure is the very opposite: where, aided by police and courts, they seem determined to remove children from responsible parents, to consign them to an often miserable life with foster carers or to adoption. Having examined many such cases in recent months, some in exhaustive detail, and spoken to experts who are deeply disturbed by what is going on, I have no hesitation in describing this as one of the worst hidden scandals in Britain today. It is clear that the child protection system created under the Children's Act 1989 has gone horrifyingly off the rails, leading one High Court judge recently to compare it to the kind of thing which went on in 'Stalin's Russia or Mao's China'. Two general aspects of this system failure are particularly shocking, One is the callous disregard the system shows for both parents and children in failing to uphold the central principle it was set up to protect: the interests of the children. The other is how the system is shrouded in such secrecy that its workings remain almost entirely concealed from public view. What is remarkable is how consistently this system displays the same fundamental flaws. From the moment social workers intrude into their lives, the parents find themselves treated like criminals, plunged into a Kafka underworld. When their children are seized, on suspicions which too often turn out to be unfounded, this is almost invariably with full support from the police. When one mother was recently breastfeeding her newborn baby at 3 o'clock in the morning, no fewer than nine police officers and social workers entered the hospital room to wrest the baby from her. The parents then find themselves caught up in a court system which seems almost entirely geared to taking their children away. There seems no one outside the system they can turn to.

The judges seem predisposed against them, Even their own lawyers can seem as much part of the system as those acting for the other side. When independent experts wish to put their case, their evidence is often ignored. As parliamentary figures show, the number of applications for care orders averages around 8,000 a year. Of these only between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent are refused. Often just as evident as the distress of the parents is that of the children, who find themselves placed in the care of strangers for reasons they cannot understand. Where 'contact' is allowed with parents this is ruthlessly supervised by the social workers, so that if a mother speaks 'inappropriately', as by showing any sign of affection to her child, the contact may be instantly terminated. All this appears to be in flagrant breach of the original Act, which purports to put the interests of the children first, not least in prescribing that wherever possible if they are taken from their parents they should be kept with their siblings as so often they are not or placed with relatives. Yet Parliamentary figures show that only in one per cent of cases are children placed with 'kinship carers' whereas in Denmark the figure is 45 per cent. Part of why social workers seem so zealous in seizing children on the flimsiest of evidence is that until recently councils were given ambitious 'adoption targets' by central government, rewarded with funds running into millions a year. Huge sums of public money are still available to fund this system. Social worker-approved foster carers can receive up to 400 a week for each child, and not a few social workers are foster carers themselves. Almost as alarming, however, is the way the system manages to blanket its operations in such secrecy. Nominally to protect the interests of the children, it is forbidden to report anything which goes on in court or which might identify them. But this often goes so much further, as when social workers instruct parents that they must not talk about their case to any outsiders, that the secrecy seems designed to protect not so much the children as the system itself. Ian Josephs, a businessman based in the South of France, first became concerned about this issue when he was a county councillor and has helped hundreds of distressed families through his Forced Adoption website. High on his list of recommendations as to how the system could be reformed is that parents who find themselves victims of the system should no longer be gagged from speaking to outsiders. There should be an end to Britain's system of 'forced adoption', almost unique in Europe. Instead of judges deciding behind closed doors, parents should be allowed to put their case to a jury. Contacts between parents and children should no longer be controlled by social workers but by a judge. Family courts should no longer be allowed to accept mere 'hearsay' evidence, Social workers should no longer be allowed to snatch children simply on vague suspicions that they might

suffer 'emotional harm'. Finally, the courts should no longer be allowed to exclude evidence from independent experts just because this might challenge the social workers' case. With these reforms, says Mr Josephs, much of the rampant injustice of this system might be removed. Since Parliament gave social workers such extraordinary power over other people's lives, politicians have by and large stepped away from the hideous abuse of that power which has resulted, Only the politicians can now get this tragically corrupted system back on the rails. And if FOUR articles from the Sunday Telegraph are not enough read two from the Times !

Family Courts are the B-side of the Law

Camilla Cavendish, The Times December 26 2006 What a strange, fumbling kind of justice system it is that condemns a woman as an unfit mother for the heinous crime of trusting her husband. Yet this is what seems to have happened in a recent case that I feel compelled to write about, even though legal restrictions force me to leave out much of the detail. The nub of the case is this. A woman, let us call her Janie, gave birth to her first and only child a year ago. That baby was taken away from her and subsequently put up for adoption. Not because of her own failure to care for the baby her own love and care never seem to have been in question. No. She has lost her baby because of a suspicion that her husband John may have injured another child in his previous marriage almost ten years ago. The suspicion was no more than that. John was never charged with anything, let alone convicted. Social workers were never sufficiently worried to take that first child into care. Since his divorce John has shared custody of that child perfectly amicably with his ex-wife. Yet the same local authority which left the first child with him has forbidden him to see this new baby. And his new wife, despite having nothing to do with the first case, may never see her baby again. Unless this case is overruled in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, where it is now heading, it will set a peculiar precedent. For it implies that any British mother could be penalised for choosing a partner to whom the State has taken a dislike: penalised with the loss of the thing that is most precious to her in the world. It cannot be this simple, you are thinking. Well, not quite. The child of the first marriage is disabled, and did seem to have suffered an injury I am not permitted to say more. But no one knows how. Both John and his first wife have always protested their innocence. They had a second child who came to no harm. No court will ever truly know whether John was innocent. But the fact is that he was never found guilty. For the local authority to leave him alone with a child that it thought he had harmed, and to take away another that had not been harmed, is utterly hypocritical. No court should be able to punish you for a crime you may commit, when there is no evidence.

It should, surely, be a crime to remove a newborn baby from a mother who has never harmed it. For that in itself is a form of abuse. Yet the secret State often chooses to abuse the children itself, rather than let them run the risk of staying put. They are at least alive, it calculates, even if it is a diminished kind of alive, deprived of the mother bond. And too often, it strikes the wrong balance. In 2002, the ECHR ruled against the British Government for removing a new baby from its mother in hospital and refusing even to let her cuddle it under supervision, when there was no evidence that the baby faced a serious risk at that time. The judgment came too late, though. The baby had already been adopted. This is what Janie fears. The ECHR has agreed to hear her appeal and to consider whether the English court ruling breached Janie and Johns right to family life, to freedom of opinion and to freedom of expression. That is quite a ticket. But even if the ECHR finds in Janies favour, it may be too late. The local authority is already seeking families to adopt her baby. Her only hope is that prospective adopters will be put off by knowing of her appeal. Any lawyer will tell you that family courts are the B-side of the legal system. The majority of judgments will never be read outside the courtroom. Perhaps judges fear the consequences if they do not support social services and social services are later proved right. They seem to start from the assumption that children are de facto wards of court who need protection from their parents. Even then, Janies case seems extraordinary. Certainly the parents are not the brightest people in the world. They are not perfect. But the more I learn about it, the more I believe that Janie and Johns biggest mistakes were emotional. Janie seems to have been very co-operative. However, John has been irritable, even aggressive, which would support the view that he has a violent nature. But can you really convict on that basis? Which of us could control our temper if faced with losing a child to a bunch of hypocrites? In a Hollywood movie, anger is a natural reaction to injustice. In an English suburb, defiance makes you guilty. The legal system wants remorse. But how can you show remorse for something you havent done? Until this case I had tended to be sceptical about the claims that the Governments targets for adoption were leading to miscarriages of justice. I still feel that ministers were right to want to speed up adoption and to release more children more quickly from the hell of care. But I have now started to take more seriously the argument that these targets have created a perverse incentive for local authorities to take more babies into care. Babies are, after all, more attractive to prospective adopters than older children and therefore an easy way to reach those targets. In Janie and Johns case, you do have to wonder why the authorities have rushed to take away a healthy baby, when they did not take away a disabled one.

Janies case seems to me to make a strong argument for introducing juries. Why is a burglar facing six months in jail allowed to ask for a jury trial, but a mother facing the irretrievable loss of her only child is not? Mistakes will always be made when the ordinary, imperfect citizen is judged by the imperfect and powerful. Personally, I would rather face 12 men good and true.

The parents asked judge Munby to stop any adoption of their daughter until the European court at Strasbourg until a verdict had been given by the European Court in Strasbourg.Exceptionally Judge Munby published his refusal for all to see ! http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/library.asp?i=2946 As Camilla Cavendish writes in the Times article above,a burglar facing the possibility of 6 months or more in prison can demand a trial by jury ,and quite right too !On the other hand, a mother whose baby has been snatched at birth by social services for "risk of future emotional abuse" can lose that baby for the rest of her life to FORCED ADOPTION but cannot demand that her case be heard by a jury.Judges in family courts nearly always side with social services in such cases ,probably out of caution as just one mistake could mean severe public criticism. This however is no justification for refusing a hearing by jury in which the mother would at least have equal chances with the social services.Juries already pass verdicts in civil courts in complicated cases of city fraud and also libel cases so would have no difficulty in deciding whether mother and child should be separated. Nearly all the injustices that are reported every day by parents whose children are confiscated in the "family courts" would be eliminated and Britain would be a fairer place ! Camilla Cavendish, of the Times replied to judge Munby as follows:- ! The Times May 24, 2007

The Rank Hypocrisy of Family Court Judges by Camilla Cavendish I was gratified this week to find that an article I wrote in December has been quoted in full by the Court of Appeal. (I only hope there were no typos.) It is flattering that Mr Justice Munby takes The Times seriously. It is of more import that he decided to publish his judgment on the case that I wrote about six months ago. For it is only when judges make their reasoning public that we can start to debate the grounds on which children should be taken into care. A few long-suffering readers may remember that this peculiar case concerns a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child for ever because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a

danger. As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the fathers inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted. This couple have become a cause clbre for campaigners who fear that the Governments drive to get more children adopted is having a perverse effect on some local authorities. For the same local authority to leave a man alone with a child that it thought he had harmed, but to take away another that had not been harmed, does seem bizarre. Until you realise that the child from the first marriage was disabled, and older, and would have been hard to place with an adoptive family. The child from the second marriage was a healthy baby, just the kind of adoptive commodity that local authorities find relatively easy to place. I still believe that ministers were right to want to speed children out of the hell of care. But they have put social services departments in a strange position. We now expect them to combine three contradictory roles: to protect children, to keep families together and to meet adoption targets (which bring financial rewards). Under pressure, in situations that are not clear-cut, those roles are bound to conflict. What is the evidence? Government figures show a significant jump in the number of babies being taken into care, from 1,600 in 1995 to 2,800 in 2005: a 75 per cent increase in ten years. While there has been an increase across all age groups, it is much, much greater for babies. More 10 to 15-year-olds are removed, but the rate of increase was only 21 per cent. One possible explanation is that the authorities are now monitoring pregnant women, especially teenagers and substance abusers. But there are also numerous examples of relatives being turned down by local authorities when they offer to take the children of a family member. Some of them may indeed be unsuitable. But the turning-down sometimes seems very peremptory. John Hemming, MP, who follows these issues closely, believes that the [hard-toplace] children the targets were established to get adopted are not getting adopted; instead a completely new group of children are being taken into care, then adopted. Ministers should be seriously alarmed if a failure to help difficult

candidates find homes were being masked by a zealous pursuit of babies. This case has also brought something else home to me: our hypocrisy about privacy. It is illegal for me to write about most care cases, or to read court papers, even when the parents involved beg me to. I can generally only write when judges go public. Yet I have discovered that even as I was writing about this case last year, painstakingly omitting much of the detail to ensure that no one could identify the child, her picture, real name and age were being published in a national newspaper. Not by a journalist, who would have been in contempt of court. But by an adoption agency, advertising for adopters. Agencies have to find good homes for needy children. Many do a great job. But for parents who are routinely told that they will be in contempt if they dare to reveal the legal proceedings to anyone outside the court, or even to talk about the child by name, because his or her privacy is paramount, it is staggering to see their children being advertised like pets. Contempt of court is a serious matter. Last year Harriet Harman, the Minister for Justice, admitted in Parliament that in 2005 200 people were sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy. Family court judges can send parents to prison for up to six months for contempt. Two hundred people is about four a week. That is far more than the number of suspected terrorists we have locked up without a fair trial. So where are the civil libertarians? One young woman was recently sent to Ashford prison for kidnapping her child back from social workers and trying to flee the country. Others seem to be committed for minor breaches of contact orders. The threat of jail is made time and again, and it is real. The main justification used for keeping family courts secret is to protect the identities of children. It is the argument used to gag parents and the media. How strange that seems when a little girl, whose family struggled to get the right legal advice to keep her, can be paraded around the country. Every judge in these adoption cases can decide to make their judgment public. Until they do, the pretence of privacy will be nothing but rank hypocrisy.
CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT REFUSING LEAVE TO APPEAL Read the latest cases!
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7095791.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265416/Glimmer-hope-parents-court-halts-forcedadoption-18-month-old-daughter.html

I repeat my earlier suggestion that in discussions, you quote this extract from "The Times" article above dated Apri13th 2010 ! "Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business /law/article7095791.ece
The rationale had been said to be that the cases involved truly private affairs, and that the court was not so much deciding contested questions as exercising what was best described as a paternalistic, parental, quasi-domestic and essentially administrative jurisdiction.

Lord Justice Munby went on: "Now that may be so of what we would today call private law cases but it surely cannot be said of public law cases, where, to make an obvious point, the State is seeking to intrude into family life and, indeed, very frequently is seeking to remove children from their families.

"Indeed, where the State is seeking to exercise such drastic powers as are engaged when it seeks a full care order or a placement order, it might be thought that the arguments in favour of publicity - in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability - are particularly compelling.

"I have previously said in public that, viewed from this perspective, our present system is indefensible. I do not shrink from repeating that." He went on: "Finally, and this was a matter of crucial importance, our rules and practices were having what I fear was a damaging effect on public confidence in the family justice system

Britain's child snatchers are a scandal

The UK's system of forced adoption requires the Government's urgent attention, says Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker Daily Telegraph, 15 May 2010
Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was "an excellent mother". In Runcorn magistrates' court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set

up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. As Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah
White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her "stolen children", including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight. Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter's loving birthday card. When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.) In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set "adoption targets" by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the

name of what amounts to heartless "social engineering". Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this. COMMENT. I want you to imagine that after many long years of searching Mrs Kate McCann finally found her daughter Madeleine living with a family in some primitive country that had no extradition treaty with the UK. I then want you to imagine that the judges in that country ruled that the child had been found in the streets and been subsequently adopted by that well meaning family, so that even if there was an injustice the adoption could never be overturned.They ruled furthermore that Mrs McCann would be put in jail if she destabilised the adoption by trying to contact her daughter,waving at her in the street or even sending her a birthday card ! There you have an exact parallel with the cases of the three mothers named in Christopher Booker's article ! -------------------Now listen to a prominent Member of Parliament: -----------Want to track down your adopted child or missing parent? Don't forget you can use facebook,twitter,genes united,friends united and countless other similar sites. If you need help some of the following organisations might be able to help you. www.dadpeter.co.uk (Help parents trace their forcibly adopted children !) or www.iwasadopted.com

Big money to be made in the adoption trade

by Christopher Booker Daily Telegraph, 19th June 2010

If ever there was a scandal which called for the full glare of publicity it is the highly secretive system which allows thousands of children to be sent for forced adoption, writes Christopher Booker.

On June 3, a 17-year-old Staffordshire girl, living with her parents and seven months pregnant, was horrified to receive a letter which began: Dear Corrinne, I am the new allocated social worker for your unborn child. We have serious concerns about your ability to care for your unborn baby. We are so worried that we intend on going to Court to apply for an Order that will allow us to place your baby with alternative carers. This so shocked the family that they raised what money they could and, like many others faced with similar threats, escaped abroad, where they now live in circumstances hardly conducive to a happy delivery of their new child. Staffordshire social workers were also involved in the tragic case of Maureen Smith, the mother so desperate at the prospect of losing her two children that she fled to Spain, where she killed them before attempting suicide. As she wrote in her suicide note: Social Services In Staffordshire and their policy of forced adoption are responsible for this. These are just two instances of the vast, long-running tragedy which Bob Geldof, launching a report last December on the barbaric chaos of our family law system, called state-sanctioned kidnap, whereby social workers, abetted by family courts and an army of complicit lawyers and experts, routinely snatch children from loving parents to feed the maw of the adoption and fostering industry. Yet contrast this with last weeks report exonerating Kirklees social workers from any failings in the case of Shannon Matthews, the Yorkshire girl made subject, after years of neglect and ill-treatment, to a fake kidnap by her mother (described by local police as pure evil). Even though no fewer than 22 agencies had been involved with this dysfunctional family over many years, the report found that Shannons treatment did not justify taking her into care. If ever there was a scandal which called for the full glare of publicity it is the highly secretive system which allows thousands of children to be sent for forced adoption, often on no proper pretext. Meanwhile the list of cases where social workers ignore all evidence in allowing the abuse of children to continue, grows ever longer. It is not generally appreciated how adoption and fostering, organised by social workers, have become big business quite apart from the fees charged by those lawyers and experts who are part of this corrupt system. Adoption payments and access to a wide range of benefits can provide carers with hundreds, even thousands of pounds a week. Still to be found on the internet (see the Forced Adoption website) is an advertisement by Slough Family Placement Services headed Balloons and family fun to promote fostering. This promised that Sloughs town square would be bustling with activities including face painting and balloon modelling, complete

with a David Beckham lookalike (bring a camera), to launch a new fostering allowance of 400 a week. I have recently reported the harassment and repeated arrests of Mauren Spalek, the devoted Cheshire mother whose two younger children were taken from her in 2006, and who faces trial on June 29 on a criminal charge of sending her son a birthday card. Last week it emerged, from an official register, what the occupation is of the woman who adopted her stolen children. She is a social worker. -----------

Forced adoption is a truly dreadful scandal

Social workers are removing children from loving families without proper justification, says Christopher Booker Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2010 In recent months, I have been reporting on what is one of the most alarming scandals in Britain today the secretive system that allows social workers to remove children from loving families without any proper justification, and to send them for adoption or fostering with no apparent concern for their interests. Four more examples have come to light in the past week. The first came to my attention via Lynn Boleyn, a former councillor from Dudley, who first became concerned about "forced adoption" when she sat on various committees concerned with child care. Last week, she was in court with a mother of five girls, whose family tragedy began when her partner was sentenced to 14 years for abusing the eldest girl, who was sent to live with a relative. Although there was no evidence of their mother harming them in any way, the other four girls were seized by Dudley social services and placed in foster care. Three were kept together, separated from their two-year-old sister whom the council now wants to put out for adoption. The three girls, aged 11, 10 and 7, are desperately unhappy, constantly asking to be reunited with their mother. But on Friday, a judge said he had no power to stop social services summarily withdrawing them from their local school to be sent to a new home. The 11-year-old was looking forward to being in the school play and the end of term Leavers' Service. She has now been torn away from friends she has known since she was four, the nearest thing to stability left in her life. The children's wishes were not taken into account. A second case concerns another woman, for 20 years an NHS nurse who served with

the Royal Army Medical Corps in the first Gulf War. Until recently, she was a semiprofessional dog breeder, living happily at home with her eight-year-old son (his father having walked out when she was pregnant). In March, their home was raided by two RSPCA officials and five policemen, complaining she had too many dogs in the house. Her home was untidy because she was clearing an attic, but the seizing of the dogs (breaking the leg of one of them) left it a befouled mess. Acting on a tip-off from the RSPCA, Leeds social workers then intervened, and expressed surprise that the house was tidier than they expected. Nevertheless, they told the mother to bring her son's clothes to school, from where he was taken into foster care. After three months, during which he has only been allowed short supervised "contact" with his mother, the boy is miserable, constantly asking when he can return home. His mother has repeatedly had to draw the social workers' attention to various conditions, such as head lice and threadworm, which indicated that he was not being properly cared for. Last week they announced that they were moving him to another foster home. Although there was no evidence that she was anything other than an admirable mother, apart from the temporary mess made of the house in March, the social workers say her son cannot be allowed home until they have both undergone "psychiatric assessments". These cannot be arranged until October. Nor has the boy yet been given a guardian to represent him, as the law lays down. My other two cases come from Ian Josephs, the former county councillor and businessman who runs the Forced Adoption website and has helped hundreds of families in a similar plight. When, in January, a couple brought their newborn son to hospital with a fractured arm, Coventry social services were called in on suspicion that the child might have been injured by his parents. After the mother had been arrested, handcuffed and held by the police for nine hours, the couple were terrified that their baby would be taken from them. Although not charged with any offence, they are on police bail, which prevents them from leaving the country. The child's Irish grandmother took the baby to Ireland, where he is now surrounded by a large, supportive family. Social services are attempting to get an order through the courts for the grandmother to return to England with the baby. My last case is so shocking that I will return to it in more detail at a later date. It centres on a London couple who, earlier this year, had their six children seized by

social workers on what appears to be flimsy hearsay evidence (I have seen the court papers). The mother was pregnant again. Last month, after the boy was born, three social workers and five policemen entered the hospital ward where she was breastfeeding at 3am, wresting the baby from her by force. They then discovered that they had nowhere to keep him. The boy was put into intensive care, where his mother was taken to breastfeed him for four days, until she was fit to leave the hospital. She saw her baby for the last time two weeks ago. I will return to this story when I have had some explanation from the council responsible. ------------------------MYSELF,MY SITE,and WHY I DO THIS. I live and work in Monte Carlo where I own and run a language school. I have an Oxford University law degree but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. So. . . Who am I really? And why do I do what I do? I am NOT repeat NOT another "Mother Teresa" and I rarely give to charity (in case I end up paying for the director's Rolls Royce!) but fighting the often brutal actions of Social Services is a cause very close to my heart. Social Services have never hurt me, my family or anyone close to me so I have no personal axe to grind but I HATE THE ABUSE OF POWER and particularly the way the bullies in social services ruthlessly destroy the very families they are supposed to protect. As a matter of principle I never charge a fee and never accept any money whatever for any expenses.Anything a parent tells me is strictly confidential but if parents do want me to involve the press by way of protest I also solemnly undertake that if ever I get offered a fee by a newspaper for introducing a family or writing about parents whose children have been taken then I promise to give 100% of any money received to the family concerned and keep nothing myself.I have no wish to imitate those disgusting people who make money out of the misery of parents who have had their children snatched by Social Services!! I get two or three new calls from parents nearly every day and advise each one as best I can.Forgive me if I ask you to repeat details and phone numbers each time you telephone or contact me as with around 100 cases going on now, at the same time, and literally thousands of cases since I began giving advice in 2005, I need reminding of the basic facts to avoid confusing one similar case with another! I have businesses to run so can only spare the time to fly over to the UK and go to court for parents as a

"Mckenzie friend" in the very worst cases(free of charge) for mothers with no criminal records,drug or alcohol problems who have had their babies snatched at birth by Social Services.This happens more often than you would think !!I will however always find the time to give my advice by email or telephone to ANY parent who contacts me concerning a problem they have with the SS (social services)! My site is different because it takes the form of a personal message from me to you, the reader and my promise to help you personally if it is within my power to do so! In exceptional cases I have personally refunded the travel expenses to Ireland of pregnant women(not addicted to alcohol or drugs and with no criminal record) who have been told by UK social services that their babies will be taken from them at birth.So far I have helped at least 20 avoid the horrors of forced adoption of their newborn babies. The public find it hard to believe what is happening to THOUSANDS of parents in the UK. 6 Facts worth noting ! 1:-The following extract from a judgement in the House of Lords confirms that alone in THE Council of Europe (except possibly Portugal) the UK CONTINUES to allow and encourage the barbaric practice of taking children from loving and desperate parents and giving them to strangers for closed and secret adoptions without parental consent. House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust. Baroness Hale of Richmond. Judgement
There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course, the most draconian interference with family life possible.

2:-Although the Children Act 1989 specifies that kinship placements(with relatives) are the preferred option in this country: The

UK has a significantly lower proportion of children in care or looked after in kinship care than

in other countries, with approximately 12 per cent, as compared to New Zealands 75 per cent, and Belgiums 33 per cent
http://www.children1st.org.uk/common/uploads/what_we_do/kinship_care.pdf

3:-Two children in care die of neglect each week The People, 22 June 2008 By David Collins Children placed in care are three times more likely to die than others, a shock report has revealed. In one year, 16 in 10,000 vulnerable youngsters died in care. The national death rate for children was five in every 10,000. The study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families showed that 800 youngsters have died in care over the last ten years - an average of two a week. The "risk" of a baby or young child being emotionally abused by a parent at some future date pales into insignificance when compared with the horrors and terrible risks that await every child taken into care by the State !
4:-Extract from The Times, Aug 23 2007

: Emotional abuse has no strict

definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse. compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and neglect - which replaced the old notion of grave concern in 1989 - have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under emotional neglect How can forced adoption by strangers of hundreds of babies said to be "at risk of emotional abuse " be justified? These babies and young children are permanently deprived of their parents and immediate families not for something that their parents have done but for something that a "hired prophet"(expert) thinks they might do in

the future ! 5:-In answer to a parliamentary question Harriet Harman (then Minister for children) admitted that more than 200 parents every year were jailed in complete secrecy in the family courts (probably for breaking gagging orders ). 6:-

Care applications continue to rise at record levels

20th October 2009 Cafcass has today published care statistics for the second quarter of 200910 showing that the number of care applications made by local authorities remains at an unprecedented high level. Compared to quarter 2 last year, care demand is up 47.2% (688 cases). June 2009 (784 cases) was the highest care demand figure ever recorded for a single month since Cafcass began collecting this data. --------

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
Booker Column 5 Nov 2010 There was a time when Britain took pride in offering a safe haven to the victims of vicious tyrannies in other countries. Today we see this in reverse, where scores of families each year are forced to flee this country as the only way to escape a vicious system bent on seizing their new-born children for no good reason. Last week I heard two more such horror stories and here is the first, in which I am legally compelled to disguise the names, Roger and Carol lived happily in Doncaster with their five-year old daughter. One day last November they had a marital disagreement, involving no more than raised voices. They were overheard by a neighbour who called the police, The couple were arrested and held for nine hours before being released without charge, But the police had summoned the social workers to remove the child, who had not been harmed in any way other than hearing her parents having a row, as countless children do every day,

The social workers obtained an interim care order, on the grounds that the child was at risk of emotional harm, and gave her to Rogers parents, both of whom have worked for the police, Although relations remained amicable, the grandparents insisted on working closely with the social workers. The parents were only allowed contact with their daughter in a filthy little contact room in the local social services office. The social workers were constantly late in bringing the child to these meetings and, as is usual, the parents were told that if they showed any emotion their contact would be stopped, Under this strain, Carol in February had a miscarriage. Last June, puzzled at why the interim care order had not been renewed as the law requires, Carol called the court to be told that the order had lapsed three months earlier. When her husband confirmed this by a second call to the court, Carol drove to her parents-in-laws home to explain that there was no longer any legal reason why her daughter could not be returned to her. Her mother-in-law protested, but the child was so overjoyed that she was free to go home that she ran to get into her mothers car. The mother-in-law stood in front of the car but Carol reversed and drove off. When her daughter said she was hungry, they stopped at a motorway service station, The grandmother had alerted the police, the car number was picked up by a camera and before long Carol, now again pregnant, was being arrested, handcuffed and pushed into a police van, On entering the police station, she collapsed and was taken to hospital, Next day she was driven back to Doncaster and interviewed four times. The police confirmed there was no care order in place, but to her astonishment Carol was told she would be charged with assaulting her mother-in-law, although there had been no physical contact between them. After midnight she was released. When the social workers applied for a new care order, the judge reprimanded them for their slipshod work but granted the order on the grounds that Carol had taken back her child without thought. Before the next hearing, the parents solicitors advised them to undergo psychological assessments. The psychologist found there was nothing wrong with Carol, but that Roger was narcissistic. They then underwent a second assessment, based on giving true or false answers to 170 questions, such as Last week I flew the Atlantic eight times. This time the verdict was that Roger was normal, but that Carol showed high probability of being a borderline alcoholic, although she hardly ever drinks at all. They could have no further contact with their child. In September Carol was in court to face the assault charges, By two to one, the magistrates found that, although there was no direct evidence she had assaulted her mother-in-law, she had been emotional in court which indicated the possibility that she might have been similarly emotional during the confrontation. They therefore found her guilty, ordering her to return for sentencing in October. Two days later, it transpired that the hospital she had visited for ante-natal tests had told the social workers she was pregnant, Her daughters guardian told her that, when

the baby was born, the social workers would seize it. At this point, Carol decided she could take no more, I had already lost one child, she says,I had suffered a miscarriage of justice, After all I had been through, there was no way I was going to lose another child. She carefully did her homework on the internet, not least through the Forced Adoption website run by Ian Josephs, a businessman living in the south of France, where she read many similar stories to her own. She discovered that a possible escape route was northern Cyprus, which has no extradition agreement with the UK. Without telling her husband, she sold one of her cars to get money for the journey, and travelled overnight in a coach down the motorway, passing the place where her daughters last sight of her mother had been of her being bundled into a police van. At Heathrow she waited hours for her plane, terrified she might be arrested. Twenty four hours after leaving home she arrived in the middle of the night in Cyprus, all alone in an unknown land. But she had made it. The following day, being a resourceful woman, she soon began to find her feet, amazed at how friendly and helpful everyone was, including the authorities. Two days later, after she had managed to tell her husband what she had done, he flew out to join her. Today, a month later, set up in a spacious villa, surrounded with friends, they cannot believe their good fortune. A scan in the efficient local hospital confirms that they can expect the birth of a healthy son, As they begin to build a new life, Carol told me last week we feel we have escaped from hell into heaven, The only thing which matters to us is that we have managed to protect our baby and future children from an outrageous, heartless business, bult round treating children as a commodity. Any other family in our situation really needs to take heed and get out. I dont feel proud to be a British citizen any more because of what happened to us. Meanwhile, back in Britain last week, the Sun and ITVs This Morning show were celebrating National Adoption Week by advertising a row of children for adoption, complete with names and winsome pictures. What neither would be allowed to do, however, is report the story of how those children came to be taken from their parents in the first place, In some cases this may genuinely have been in the childs interests. But in too many others the story of how cruelly children in Britain today can be snatched from loving and responsible parents might make those Sun readers very angry indeed.

This mother went on the run across Europe after social workers tried to snatch her son. Her crime? Letting him see her husband shout at her...
By Sue Reid Daily Mail 16th August 2009

Angela Wileman never thought this day would come. She wraps her arms around her seven-year-old son Lucas, as if she cannot let go. 'I have fought to keep him and I have won. At last we can stop running away,' she says with relief in her voice. Sitting in the garden of her home, with toys strewn on the lawn, this English mother is still stunned that earlier this week she eventually triumphed against social workers planning to seize her son and hand him to new adoptive parents. For two years she has played a cat-and-mouse game as the British authorities spent thousands of pounds chasing her around Europe, decrying her as a bad mother and threatening to put her in prison. An MP is now demanding an investigation into the waste of taxpayers' money by Devon social services. Terrified of losing Lucas, Angela fled first to Spain and then Sweden. She now lives in County Wexford, Southern Ireland. The authorities in each of the countries deemed her a perfectly good mother to her son and let her keep him. But it had been a very different story back in Britain, where Angela, 33, fell foul of a disturbing new tactic by social workers. In the past ten years there has been a 50 per cent rise in the number of parents who, just like her, have been accused of 'emotionally harming' their children. A quarter of forced adoptions happen after social workers allege that the child has been the victim of emotional abuse - far more than instances of sexual abuse or cruelty. Last year, 6,700 'emotionally harmed' children were placed on the protection register. There were 2,600 registrations for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Parents who social workers say might shout at, or even loudly reprimand, their children in the future have been branded as potential emotional abusers and had their toddlers or newborn babies removed from them. 'Emotional harm' is the latest buzz phrase in the social workers' lexicon - one that can condemn almost any family. Yet it has no strict definition under British law. ---

HISTORY This sorry story dates back to the six years 1960-1966 when I was a Kent County

Councillor and a mother came to me for help because social workers had taken away her son, Trevor, aged 12 (and of near-genius IQ) because he got bored at school and played truant! She was denied all contact and when I asked where he was and if, as the mother's elected representative, I could at least see him myself I was told to mind my own business! I found him at a special private school (owned by the deputy leader of the Labour Party at the time) that was charging exorbitant fees more than 3 times those charged at ETON or HARROW! Young Trevor informed me that the boys were paid the sum of one shilling (5p) when required to sleep with any of their over affectionate teachers at this very special children's home! Eventually after acrimonious debates in the Council chamber and a court action he was returned to his mother and I was asked to help many other parents whose children had been removed for absurd reasons. I applied in court for the discharge of care orders. I called the parents and sometimes the children themselves as witnesses in court against my own Council and I never lost a case so I was not best popular with my colleagues and the social workers! However after 6 years of neglecting my language school (then in Ramsgate) I decided not to stand at the next election as I really had to earn my living and look after my family so I reluctantly gave up the battle for a time. In 2004 there was suddenly a lot of publicity when it was admitted that thousands of children had been wrongly taken from mothers who had been diagnosed with Munchausens Syndrome, meaning that mothers who took their children to hospital too often were deliberately hurting them to draw attention to themselves. This was one of the absurd notions of the now discredited Professor Meadows which had no scientific basis that could possibly justify attributing the syndrome to so many unfortunate women. Worse still was his completely unproved theory that two cot deaths in the same family were 70 million to one! Hundreds of women were condemned for murder. Their surviving children and babies born subsequently were taken away and given for adoption by strangers. Only later was it realised that genetic factors made it far more likely for cot deaths to repeat in the same family than elsewhere and odds reduced to about 60 to 1. These cases were in the Criminal Courts so they got fully reported and this provoked me to write to the Daily Mail detailing some of my experiences on Kent County Council all those years ago. They published my letter and I was surprised subsequently to receive several requests from mothers and parents trying to recover and in some cases just to contact - children snatched from them by Social Services. I am now comfortably off, my 7 children are adult and I am in my seventies, with the time and still with the energy to once again take up the battle with Social Services!

Couple who fled UK after social workers took their child are declared fit parents by Spanish officials and reunited with baby No2
By Sue Reid, Daily Mail Last updated at 12:11 PM on 18th December 2010 A baby boy who was snatched from his parents on the authority of social workers has been returned after tests showed the couple are perfectly capable of caring for him. Ten-month-old Daniel was back home with his parents last night after spending most of his young life in an orphanage. The smiling boy was cuddled by his father and mother, Jim and Carissa, whose names we have changed for legal reasons. The couple had fled to Spain, where Daniel was born in February, after their other child, Poppy, now two, was seized by Suffolk social services and put up for adoption. They had deemed the couple 'unfit' parents who might emotionally harm their daughter in the future. This decision was roundly criticised in the Commons by local MP Tim Yeo as 'tantamount to child kidnap'. Daniel was still being breast-fed by Carissa in hospital when Spanish social workers, acting on a tip-off from Suffolk, took him and placed him in an orphanage in Valencia. Now, in a snub to their UK counterparts, Spanish social workers say Jim and Carissa are no danger to Daniel. Jim, a 42-year-old legal adviser, and Carissa, 32, plan to sue Suffolk social services for breaking up their family. They are also taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming their family life has been destroyed, as they prepare to fight a High Court legal battle to get Poppy back next month. Last night Jim said at their home in Spain: 'The Spanish social services say we meet

all their criteria for being good parents and we're delighted. The authorities here did extensive psychological tests on both of us and found we are normal, and capable of caring for our children. We passed the six tests with flying colours. 'We hope this will lead to our family being reunited with Poppy at last, and the four of us being left to get on with our lives together.' His parents had moved to Spain when Carissa became pregnant with Daniel and received warnings from Suffolk Council that he might be taken away when he was born. Their daughter had been torn from Carissa's arms at 12 weeks old in October 2008 when social workers and police arrived at the couple's home in East Anglia. They were acting on unproven allegations about Carissa from her ex-husband after a difficult divorce. They refused to believe evidence to the contrary provided by the couple. But the brutality of the snatch led to the intervention by Mr Yeo. He said: 'Suffolk Council actively seeks opportunities to remove babies from their mothers.' Meanwhile, Poppy is living with foster parents who hope to adopt her. Suffolk social workers are not allowed to rubber stamp the adoption while Jim and Carissa fight the plan in the High Court. The crucial test results on Jim and Carissa have been examined by the Daily Mail. We have changed their names and Daniel's because, under British laws, the identity of the family cannot be publicised while Poppy is up for adoption. The return of Daniel is a breakthrough for scores of families who have fled overseas to escape the clutches of British social workers. In a separate move, Jim and Carissa, along with 35 families, have launched unprecedented legal action against UK family courts which have taken 50 of their children for forced adoption. All were deemed at risk of 'future emotional harm' from their parents, a condition unproven in science and often used as the premise to remove children from families by social workers. Jim said: 'To find our son had gone as she lay in the hospital was cruelty beyond

belief. 'She could not bear to face the heartbreak again of having yet another child snatched from her. So she decided to be sterilised there and then.' They saw Daniel on nine occasions after he was taken to the Spanish orphanage 10 months ago. 'He recognised us every visit and since he arrived home he has never stopped smiling at us,' added Jim.

Golden rules summary:1:- IGNORE SOCIAL WORKERS !! Don't talk to them ,allow them in your house,assess you, or send you to the psychobabble merchants ! The "SS" have NO authority so you are not obliged to listen to them or obey them ! Never ask them for help,think very carefully before you report a violent partner(especially if the abuse is only verbal) or even a sexual molester(especially if the children beg you to say nothing) as once social workers or police are involved you risk losing your children for "failing to protect them" Never let social workers in your house without an appointment,,never go alone to any meetings they hold,never agree to voluntary care for your child,never admit to any fault (they don't!),never be rude or unfriendly to them,but never obey them either!NEVER,NEVER sign anything even when they pressure you!Remember social workers are not police,and have no legal authority to give you orders as only a court can do that . They cannot stop you seeing your children as they come out of school or receiving emails from any public library,or receiving reverse charge calls from any call box if they dial 100 unless you have been served with a specific court injunction forbidding all contact. IF the "SS" threaten to take your children for adoption,make sure they never forget you .Hug them tight at "last contact" so they cannot easily be removed while you repeat to them that wicked people are stealing them for money ,and to say no to adoption when they try to give them a horrible new mummy and daddy ! THIS AT LEAST SHOULD HELP TO SABOTAGE ANY UNWANTED ADOPTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR KIDS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND GET IN TOUCH LATER .Not many "adopters" will want to take in a child who has been told to say "NO" to adoption in any case ! 2:-Family Courts:- 99.7% of parents lose against the "ss" in court and those who win are usually those who represent themselves as most legal aid lawyers in family courts are "professional losers" not on your side at all ! .If you are a couple let one have a

lawyer and the other act in person.State facts not opinions , never interrupt and you will at least have been allowed to speak unlike many parents who lose their children to adoption for life without saying a single word ! Answer all questions from police or barristers whenever possible by "yes","no" or "I don't know" and never complain about any social worker or police officer in court.Never say there is a conspiracy against you,say instead that social workers try desperately to COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES in your case and that civil servants are notorious for trying to cover up mistakes rather than admit them ! 3:- Only agree to using the parents assessors,psychologists, and other professionals who are listed on this site as contacts (find them just after the golden rules).Avoid the so called "professionals" selected by the "ss" who are regularly paid outrageous fees to discredit you ! 4:-Remember there is no forced adoption in Ireland (no passports needed on the ferry) ,Spain,France,or Italy and no extradition from N.Cyprus! Escape legally (nobody can stop you!) whilst pregnant or well before court proceedings have started and you will be safe ! YES THEY CAN BE BEATEN !!
Detailed GOLDEN RULES!! (summary above)

Do PLEASE remember the golden rules: (By all means print this off and keep the copy near at hand if SS approach! Show these rules to your lawyer or social worker to prove that you KNOW your rights!) REMEMBER THESE EVEN IF YOU FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE ADVISED! 1: NEVER contact social services (child protection) for help or advice. You should consider very carefully before you report a partner who batters you or even a stranger who sexually assaults your young child, as if you do the SS will as often as not take your children into care (and later for adoption) to "protect them" from risk! If they have your children and you are fighting to get them back, NEVER NEVER tell social workers how you think you are going to defeat them, or what you are going to do next!Remember, without mentioning it to "them", that even if your children are "in care" social workers do not have the legal power to stop your children going to any call box (without any money) to dial 100 and asking the operator to reverse charges and to put the call through to their parent(s) ,or from going to any public library and e-mailing you, or even meeting you for a meal as long as they return "home" to the fosterers afterwards!

Care home girl abused by 25 men in 2 years Source: Daily Mail Published: 27th August 2006 A 14-year-old girl placed in a council children's home was prostituted to a group of depraved middle-aged men because staff were powerless to stop her going out. The

horrific story of 'Becky' is highlighted in a BBC television programme presented by Fiona Bruce this week which reveals how
she was sexually abused by 25 men over two years - despite being known to social services and having been placed on the Child Protection Register. Even when she was put in a children's home - six months after her earliest allegations of abuse -staff allowed her to be used as a prostitute for fear their intervention might infringe her human rights. If the "SS" cannot prevent a young girl in their care from working as a prostitute then surely they cannot prevent other young people they "care for" from spending the day with parents if they so choose!Remember also that children of school age have a break so you can call them and speak to them through the railings without trespassing and nobody can stop you except a judge by serving a court injunction on you that will be too late to stop you reminding your children of their real family ! Remember also that if your children suffer visible damage whilst being fostered TAKE dated and timed PHOTOGRAPHS of black eyes,bruises,cigarette burns or other injuries and give them to the police ,your MP, the NSPCC then ring Childline to make criminal complaints demanding prosecution of the perpetrators ! Don't take "no" for an answer from any of them !! Remember also that if children are 16 or more they will often be released from care.Sometimes however the "SS" take a particular dislike to a family and say they will keep the child until 18 when the care order must expire.

NEVER MIND! There is a way out ! If a child marries at 16 then the care order ceases !A marriage anywhere in Scotland does NOT need parental consent.Take the hint !
2: Never believe a word "they" say and always insist they put their promises down in writing. Always be pleasant and polite to social workers,but never forget they are your ENEMIES ! Remember that they may deliberately try to provoke you into shouting or violence that they will exaggerate in court leaving you with a criminal record and no children! When they shout at you forget your "pride" and look very hurt saying "why are you being like this to me?" or "I thought you were so nice until now, please don't bully me!" Be very respectful "tongue in cheek", but remember

THEY ARE NOT POLICE so never follow their "helpful advice" especially if they say your only chance of getting your children back is to split from a partner, or parent you love and respect! They will try and turn you against each other as the "divide and rule" principle makes sure you are confused and demoralised when you lose your case and your children too!If you are told to get a different solicitor to your partner I advise you to represent yourself and let your partner keep a solicitor (or vice versa) so that at least one of you will be free in court to tell your own story and to question social workers ! Quite often they arrange deliberately awkward contact times with your children. This can result first in the loss of your job and then as a consequence of that, your accommodation also. Object firmly and forcefully in court to their plans and fight hard to keep your job and your house or appartment. Remember that when they make the threat "do as we say or we shall take your children" they intend to take them anyway no matter how much you do to please them and they just want you to make it easier for them to win their case in court by seeing psychologists and parenting assessors they have chosen themselves and who they know will give you bad reports ! IGNORE THE SS!THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY AND NO POWER . Every time you do what they say you make it easier for them to take your children so don't be taken in ! IF THEY ASK YOU WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM AND HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT,SURPRISE THEM WITH HOW MUCH YOU KNOW BY ANSWERING AS FOLLOWS:- !
Children should only be taken if a parent has been charged with a crime against a child or has committed one . The process of dealing with such cases in a criminal court rather than a civil one would also DETERMINE THAT FAULTS BY A PARENT WOULD BE JUDGED NOT ON PROBABILITIES BUT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT . Parents would then automatically have the right to ask for a hearing in front of a jury if they risked losing their children long term or permanently. These reforms would stop most of the present injustices,so it is worth repeating how unjust the family courts have become.
EXAMPLES OF HOW RULES OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN DISCARDED IN THE FAMILY COURTs WHEN GRANTING INTERIM CARE ORDERS. 1:- Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents.Family and friends of parents are routinely excluded from the court but groups of social workers are allowed to stay in the court to listen to their colleague's testimony whether they are witnesses or not. 2:- Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them.Judgements,reports from experts,and position statements are either witheld or given to parents at the last minute (too late to read and analyse them properly). 3:- .Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when "experts" and

Doctors have testified against them.If parents record contacts with their children, or interviews with experts or social workers judges routinely refuse permission for these recordings to be heard yet they always allow recordings and video evidence to be heard if produced by police or social workers 4:-Parents whose children have been taken are routinely and wrongly told that they may not talk to ANYONE about their case. 5:-Parents are jailed if they protest publlcly when their children are taken.They are also jailed for "breach of the peace" or "harassment" if they dare to trace and then contact their own children after adoption.Parents are therefore" twice gagged" contrary to the Human Rights Act ,Article 10 entitling all persons "freedom of expression",ie freedom of speech. 6:-Local authority barristers in court often read out statements from absent persons as though they are themselves witnesses but they cannot be questioned. 7:- Most solicitors refuse to let their clients speak and then agree to all care orders demanded by social services. 8:-Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves even though they have the right to do so;Their evidence and their arguments are usually ignored in the judgements. 9;-Parents representing themselves are often given an hour or two's notice to appear in court but solicitors are given weeks ! 10:-Parents are punished for "risk" ie not what they have done but for what they might do in the future! "Risk of emotional abuse" is favourite because there is no legal definition of this and it is usually impossible for parents to defend themselves against "predictions" by so called "experts". 11:-Judges give social workers the power to withold parent's contact with their children" in care" as a punishment for saying they love them and miss them or that they are fighting to get them back .They use this power to gag parents and force them into complete submission ! 12:-Parents are in effect condemned for offences against their children on "probabilities" 51% instead of beyond reasonable doubt. 13:-Parents who were themselves in care or who were abused in childhood are often judged unfit to be parents as a result. 14:-Parents often forfeit their children for "failing to engage with professionals" 15:-Parents faced with forced adoption lose their children for life, without being allowed a hearing by jury. 16:-Under the UN Convention on children's rights children have a RIGHT to be heard in court but are usually denied that right. 17:-Solicitors routinely tell client parents to agree to interim care orders or they risk never seeing their children again.A lie ! 18:-Social workers are legally obliged to place children with relatives if possible but either ignore this or find pretexts to fail them on assessments 19:-Human rights to free speech and freedom of movement are breached by gagging orders and confiscating passports. 20:-Parents are routinely forbidden to call witnesses on their behalf contrary to human rights.Family and

friends are wrongly prevented from entering the court.

3: NEVER, NEVER, NEVER sign any documents they present to you, even if they say "you have to!" Social Workers rely on BLUFF. In reality they have NO POWER and no right to threaten you or give you orders of any kind! Only a COURT via an order from a judge can give you orders, and you always have the opportunity to contest those orders in court either before or after they are given to you. No matter what threats,or promises they make, you can be 100% sure that if you get intimidated into signing they will break their word and expect you to keep your's! So, DO NOT SIGN! Answer "yes", "no" or "I don't know" to questions WITHOUT further explanations that could be twisted to be used against you! If the "SS" do not have enough evidence against you do not "cooperate" by supplying them with what they need even if they threaten you.If your enemies run out of ammunition ,do NOT send them over a box of bullets to help them out ! Once the SS have applied for a care order remember their main object is NOT the welfare of the child ,it is to WIN their case against you ! Disregard any threats that you must "do as they tell you ". Be polite and even apologetic when you refuse to obey them ! 4: Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say it is TEMPORARY OR VOLUNTARY) Never "agree" the thresholds even if you are advised that this will ensure the return of your children, because if you do you will have admitted neglecting or abusing your child and the only question left will be to decide if you have really repented and are capable of "change"! Usually the answer is no! Sometimes your own lawyer may tell you to agree the thresholds and/or agree to an interim care order otherwise "you will never see your children again! "That is a wicked lie designed to save the lawyers work and to help you LOSE your children! Sometimes lawyers will tell you there is no need for you to give evidence as they will speak for you; that way you may find you have lost your children very quickly without being allowed to say a word, so BEWARE!Most of the "legal aid lawyers" in the family courts are rightly known in the trade as "PROFESSIONAL LOSERS"!! Many of them pretend to work for you when in fact they are really on the side of the Local Authority.

www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk is the site where you can find the very worst solicitors listed by name !!
A very few will say "we will fight social services for you and try our best to get your children back !" Those are the lawyers to keep and to value as they are rare !

 But here is a list of very rare people ! Solicitors who are honest and will fight for you !
http://www.solicitorsfromheaven.com/

More often alas you will have to sack your lawyers and represent yourself simply because they will not let you speak in court! Never admit to social workers (who are your ENEMIES) that you have been at fault in even the smallest possible way,(they certainly will never admit to you that they were ever at fault!). You must never lie in court, but you should never never admit to any fault on your part unless forced to do so by a direct "yes or no" type question in court. Above all,NEVER NEVER plead guilty to something you have not done simply because they promise to" bind you over" or let you off with "a caution" if you do and threaten you with prison if you refuse !This just means they have insufficient evidence and are trying to trick you into pleading guilty so they can win their case ! ESCAPE WHILE YOU HAVE TIME !You must never disobey a court order by taking abroad a child already in care, but if you are pregnant and threatened neither a court nor the "SS" can stop you leaving the country before the baby is born!If the children are already with you ,but you feel menaced by social services try to leave the country BEFORE any notice of care proceedings is served on you. Ireland is easiest and is cheap to get to.( No forced adoption allowed there,and if you take the ferry no passport needed!) www.irishferries.co.uk/ or www.stenaline.co.uk give good information so you can discreetly book on line! .The "SS" rarely work at weekends so a departure on Friday evening is a good way of avoiding altercations and clashes with frustrated social workers ! Remember you are 100% safe from UK social services if your baby is born in Ireland (or nearly anywhere in Europe except the UK ). The Irish social services are mostly a friendly bunch who will not take too much notice if the UK lot contact them and rubbish you;They may even take your baby for a little while as a precaution but you normally get it back pretty quickly and never never risk the horror of forced adoption. BEWARE the Sunnybank Hotel Glasnevin as it is half-owned with a social worker who cooperates wtih the Social Services in the UK. Stay clear of this place at all costs!!! IMPORTANT:- The European Court of Justice recently decided that Britons living abroad are still entitled to claim welfare benefits from the UK !! Here is a Mumsnet thread re adoption in Ireland. A married couple can't give up a

child for adoption even if they want to!! A single mother can give up her child for adoption, presumably for a fairly obvious reason. The Irish State cannot forcibly adopt a child against the wishes of a married or single mother!! :http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/ad mumshouseireland.ie.is a helpline for mums who flee to Ireland that you can reach by

simply clicking in to the website of mumshouse !Try the link below if the one above does not work;
Parents of Irish citizen children On 8 March 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in the Zambrano case C 34/09, that an EU member state may not refuse the non-EU parents of a dependent child who is a citizen of, and resident in, an EU member state the right to live and work in that member state. The Department of Justice and Equality is reviewing the cases of non-EEA parents of Irish citizen minor children which may meet the criteria specified in the Zambrano case.

://www.thefamilylawdirectory.com.au/blog/disturbing-ruling-by-european-hagueconvention.html

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Decided( above) that the best interests of the child would be the deciding factor to determine whether that child could remain in Ireland. Previously the question concerned "habitual residence". Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland A Momentous and Disturbing Ruling in Europe on the Hague Abduction Convention ...

183 days(6 months) residence to claim full benefitsin Ireland .

http://keepingyourhome.ie/rent.supplement.html.en

Even better is North Cyprus where there is a large British

colony and NO EXTRADITION even for criminals ! www.northcyprus.com Fly from most UK airports but if you think you might get stopped there then it is 100% safe if you fly there from Ireland.
See also Angela Wileman's "survival guide" reproduced a bit later on ( just scroll down).She escaped, beat the ss, and survived even though she had to flee from the UK to Sweden,and from there to Spain and finally with the "SS" still in hot pusuit to Ireland where the SS finally gave up wasting public money hounding her !! 5: When possible refuse to be assessed by so called "experts, "(psychiatrists, therapists, psychologists, counsellors, professionals, and the like)inevitably selected by those who are hostile to you. You should however agree if you are advised to do so by a judge.If it is only the "SS" who demand an assessment insist that your children are returned first as otherwise the process will take place in an artificial atmosphere with you as parents emotionally distressed because your children have been taken.If for some reason that is not possible request at least that you share in the choice of "expert" so as to avoid the "regulars" who appear in court time after time and always find that parents have "personality disorders" or similar mental issues. Remember that if the "SS" insist on these assessments their sole purpose is to gather sufficient evidence to help them win their case against you in court!If you talk a lot and do not listen to them they will say you have mental problems or "PERSONALITY DISORDERS",so be "quiet and attentive" during assessments. Try not to answer questions with more than 5 or 6 words (they write down anything unhelpful you may let slip). Try indeed to answer "yes" or "no" whenever possible. Remember to be the OPPOSITE of what whatever faults the ss attribute to you !If they say you are too aggressive,act timid and vice versa!If they say you are too emotional act "cool" and vice versa! Your whole tone" in Court "must be one of "sweetness and light" regretting that your children were mistakenly taken and that THEY (not you) suffered harm and anguish as a result! DO NOT LOSE your case by being hostile in court towards social workers and especially towards the judge !!Eagerly propose a supervision order as a much more suitable alternative for your children than fostering or forced adoption.Emphasise that you have nothing to hide and that if a SUPERVISION ORDER is granted instead of fostering or adoption, your door will always be open to health visitors and social workers wishing to check the well being of your children ! Your whole case must be that

YOUR CHILDREN have suffered harm (not yourself) and that you are taking action for their sake not for your own! If you are accused of "being unable to work with the professionals", reply that you will work 100% with them if they say their objective is to reunite your family by eventually returning your children, but that it is unfair to expect you to work with anyone whose objective declared to the court is to put your children into care or worse still have them adopted! NEVER COMPLAIN NEVER EXPLAIN! Complaints about individual social workers ,lawyers,or policemen are a waste of time as they investigate themselves and you risk being diverted from the more important task of keeping or recovering your children.Complaints against social workers often result in them taking your children or redoubling their efforts to keep them if they already have them !They are a vindictive lot !

Never explain or elaborate when questioned as this only gives extra material to
those who wish to discredit you. If asked when,why,or whether you did something or went somewhere,answer "yes","no" "I don't know"or "I don't remember" but never try to explain WHY you went there or did something (unless asked specifically) and even then reply "because I thought it the best thing to do at the time" or something similar as explaining and talking too much will enable a crafty local authority barrister to seize on something you let slip and turn your case from winning into losing ! Never make angry personal attacks on anybody or threaten to sue the "SS" or police at a later date, as it just makes YOU sound bad.They may even seize on your resentment as an excuse to diagnose you with PARANOIA ! If you are accused of wild conspiracy theories and thinking all the world is against you,then replythat social workers are desperate to COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES IN YOUR CASE RATHER THAN ADMIT THEM; also that you can't help believing what the most senior family judges say ! By all means quote this extract sorrowfully from "The Times" April 13th 2010,saying even the most dedicated social workers can make bad mistakes ! "Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7095791.ece

Summary of how to talk with psychologists etc; To avoid accusations of mental problems OR TO PRESENT YOUR CASE IN COURT act as follows:1:- Do NOT speak a lot or go off the subject chosen for discussion by the psy OR BY THE COURT; 2:-NEVER slag off anybody or complain about anybody past or present ;Say only that those who took your children made a terrible mistake ! Do NOTget angry about anything ! 3:-Say ONLY that your children have suffered being deprived of a mother NOT that you have suffered ! 4:-Listen carefully when the psy OR HOSTILE BARRISTER speaks to you and NEVER interrupt when he/she is talking however much you want to ! 5:- Try NOT to complain about anything especially your parents or your childhood as psys blame everything on childhood incidents! 6:- Answer all questions where possible by YES or NO or possibly" I don't know" or "I can't remember" ! NEVER go in for long explanations or excuses and never admit to wrongdoing because if you do they will make your past admitted mistakes the highlight of the report ! If a judge tries to ridicule your testimony by asking "Do you think we are all in a conspiracy to take your child"? Answer"No of course not ! It's just that social workers never change their minds once they form an opinion even if later events show they were wrong. They stick to their original story come what may to COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES and the courts nearly always side with them.Ask " Who am I to disagree with the senior family court judge when he says the behaviour of social workers is shocking?" BEWARE the "Official Solicitor" !http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6493681.ece If you get too upset or too excited the judge may decide you are not capable of instructing a solicitor or representing yourself and will appoint this parasite to represent you instead.He is by law forbidden to put on a case for you as his job is simply to agree with the "SS" ,to refuse to let you speak, and ensure that you lose your precious children without being allowed to say a word !! Even if you stay calm but still show hostility the judge may appoint a psychologist recommended by the "SS" to give you an IQ test and if through nerves etc your results are poor once again the Official Solicitor will be appointed to "represent" you.Alas,thanks to him, you will be gagged, and your children will be lost to forced adoption .An article from the

Sunday Times (see link above) states that 588 cases in which parents have been gagged and the Official Solicitor has given away their children have taken place in the family courts from Jan 2006 until june 2009 . Remember that the SS often "brainwash" children in care by telling them that their mother is too ill to care for them or worse still does not love them or want them any more, but when they are adopted they will have a lovely new "for ever mummy and daddy"! These children are often traumatised for life wondering if they are evil and if that was why their mother abandoned them.Better to avoid this trauma by telling them the initially upsetting truth.Make sure you hold them tight to stop interuptions when you tell the children that "wicked people have stolen them for money and that you will never stop fighting to get them back" ! Whisper this in their ears or calmly make the statement out loud in spite of horrified supervisors who may then try to shout you down !Even children as young as 3 will remember all their lives such a brutal but necessary message. Vital however it is, as it will eventually make a stable adoption impossible to sustain !Your reluctantly adopted children will as a result seek you out and come back to you in the end ! IF the "SS" threaten to take your children for adoption,make sure they never forget you ! THIS AT LEAST SHOULD HELP TO SABOTAGE ANY UNWANTED ADOPTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR KIDS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND GET IN TOUCH LATER .Not many "adopters" will want to take in a child who has been told to say "NO" to adoption in any case ! Once adoption proceedings have finished there is no more confidentiality ,so plaster your children's names and photographs all over facebook and the rest of the internet together with names of the social workers and so called "experts" who have stolen your children !Make it hard for adopters and ss alike as that's your best chance of eventually seeing your children again !The ss may seek an injunction to remove the display so it is prudent to have a third party actually put on the photos etc with your complete story on facebook,twitter,and all the other similar sites ! If you find your adopted child 's address or school MAKE FACE TO FACE contact immediately !Do NOT SEND EMAILS OR CARDS IN ADVANCE or make any phone calls that could warn the adoptive parents and send them to court for an injunction !Also your children were probably told that you abandoned them and did not love them so they might even avoid meeting you without finding out the truth through nervousness .For these reasons, give no advance notice of your intentions to call on them.

6: Protect yourself against social workers with NO COURT ORDER barging uninvited into your home by fitting a small chain inside your front door. This means that if you do not unlatch the chain when you see who is calling that person would have to push the door hard enough to break the chain which would be a "forced entry "and a criminal offence if committed without a document from the court such as a "recovery order" specifically allowing entry using reasonable force. Unless they intend to actually arrest someone or have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm, police also would have to have a warrant before breaking the chain. Usually they will not have one and would have to convince a judge that a serious crime had been or was about to be committed before one was granted. 7: If social services request a look at your medical records (probably to try and find something to discredit you) ALWAYS write to any doctor or psychiatrist that has seen you as follows: "I respectfully request you to keep all my medical notes strictly confidential as I intend to take legal proceedings against social services and any other persons who might obtain my medical details without my express authorisation". 8: Never write a letter to anyone connected to Social Services as you might include something that could damage your case in the family court. Only accept a solicitor if he/she promises to allow you a free hand to speak in court! You should be asked this simple question in the witness box "Have you anything you would like to say to the court?" Without this promise you may be "gagged" and as already explained in Rule 4 you can lose your case without being allowed to say a word! Remember this:- IF YOU CAN'T SPEAK IN COURT YOU CAN'T WIN !!!

REPRESENT YOURSELF !
The growing number of litigants in person, and the consequent drag on the pace of family proceedings, have inspired a new book, Family Courts Without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person, written by Lucy Reed, a barrister at St John's Chambers, Bristol , and the author of the PinkTape blog. This website accompanies the book Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person. The book and website help if you are involved in disputes with your ex over divorce, money or children and do not have a lawyer to represent you in court.

You will find here downloadable versions of all the useful documents, templates and suggested clauses presented in the book plus links to the core sources and agencies cited. Just click on the Resources tab above Armed with the book and this website, you will be able to present your own case effectively and confidently before the judge, increasing your chances of achieving a good outcome. Find out more about the book, Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person Lucy Reed, the author the publishers Or order your copy now - call us now on 0870 165 1443 or order online from our distributors, BEBC, here

Remember above all that your objective must be to WIN YOUR CASE ! Not to "score points", and not to discredit social workers,guardians ,police,judges or the system itself,as these tactics though satisfying will make sure you lose ! Never be untruthful in court but never antagonise the judge by openly disagreeing with what he says even if secretly you think he is a pompous idiot !If the judge in a final care case hints strongly that you will recover your children if only you will accept the findings of fact from the previous hearing or maybe if you agree to see yet another "expert" to assess you ,then humour the judge and accept what he says ! Remember that judges finally do have authority over you, whilst social workers have none Always present your case calmly and factually based on evidence not opinions so that it becomes obvious to all that it is in the children's best interests is to stay with you ! -------------------------USEFUL CONTACTS TO HELP YOU! (If your cause is just these professionals really will be on your side not that of social services !) If you find a solicitor,barrister psychologist,psychiatrist,parent assessor,or children's help line that has taken your side against the ss and really helped you to win your

case please LET ME KNOW and I will add their names to the list on my site !
Welcome to Rights4me!

....if you are living in a children's home, family centre, boarding school, residential special school, further education college, with foster carers, are adopted, getting any sort of help from social services or a care leaver then this is the place to find out about your RIGHTS and a way for you to BE HEARD! Free Phone: 0800 528 0731 or write to: Office of the Childrens Rights Director Ofsted Aviation House 125 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE

www.lawstuff.org.uk is a free advice centre for children; Freephone 08088020008

Need to talk? Call ChildLine

Calls are free and confidential

Childline counsels more than 3,000 children in care

Report calls for advocates for looked after children One in 26 looked after children contact ChildLine about failings and weaknesses in the care system, a ChildLine report has revealed. Over the last five years, the number of 'looked after children' contacting ChildLine has increased by over 30 per

cent. In all, 3,196 looked after children some as young as five contacted ChildLine over 2009-10 with problems about being in care. Many were suffering physical and sexual abuse and neglect and felt lost and helpless in the care system. The report calls on local authorities to ensure looked after children always have an adult to speak up for them when they need help. At present, children only have a right to an 'advocate' if they want to make a formal complaint about their care. Some children were deeply unsettled and traumatised after being moved several times a year, some as many as 15 times. Others complained of emotionally abusive or uncaring carers and being bullied by other children. Many looked after children had to be counselled about self-harming or running away. They talked about being 'sick of life' and wanting to 'give up and die'
Get support on the message boards Other ways you can talk to ChildLine NYAS

The National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) is a UK charity providing children's rights and socio-legal services. We offer information, advice, advocacy and legal representation to children and young people up to the age of 25, through a network of advocates throughout England and Wales. NYAS is also a community Legal Service. NYAS is committed to working towards full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular Article 12 which concerns the right of every young person to be consulted in all matters affecting them. NYAS seeks to provide and develop its services through the active participation of young people, who are involved at all levels of the organisation. Our mission statement : "To enable children and young people to have a voice by providing independent and confidential advice, information and advocacy services" NYAS provides a safety net for children and young people who have nowhere else to turn. Children use freephone:0800 61 61 01 or text :-07773334555 Adults contact legal dept,

TEL:-0151 649 8700 SOLICITORS: Want to sue the police for harassing you or even jailing you for contacting your own children?Ring 08008047547 freephone for a free consultation about your case on a no win no fee basis !
Solicitor That Will Take Action Against the Police or Sue the ...

Our solicitors are experienced at winning civil actions against the police in the UK. You can claim compensation for a variety of reasons.
www.accidentaccident.co.uk/actions-against-the-police.php

Solicitors who have actually won cases against the ss !

Brendan Fleming Solicitors

165 Newhall Street Birmingham B3 1SW, United Kingdom 0121 683 5000 Amanda Neill ,B J McKenna & Co Certainly a good option for normal cases in the family courts. 182a Heaton Moor road, Stockport SK4 4DU Tel 01614325757
enquiries@bjmckenna-solicitors.co.uk

Essex solicitors & UK Lawyers Essex, Home Counties, S.E England CRIMINAL CASES:Harris Cuffaro and Nichols Solicitors Bank House 37-39 High Street Harlow Essex enquiry @hcnlaw.co.uk Tel:- 01279444456 Fax:-01279439390

www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk is the site where you can find the very worst solicitors listed by name ! But here is a list of very rare people ! Solicitors who are honest and will fight for you !

http://www.solicitorsfromheaven.com/

: http://www.justice-for-families.org.uk/ or
emily.wilson-gavin@justice-for-families.org.uk are the email addresses for "justice

for families, an organisation headed by John Hemming MP with an excellent team who help those who do not trust their solicitors! An organisations that can help:Michael Markham 07546078676 Email: familyrightsandjustice@zoomshare.com Web: www.familyrightsandjustice.zoomshare.com

BARRISTERS:Please note that usually you CANNOT contact any barrister direct but must instruct your solicitor to contact him/her for you.

Barrister DARREN WATTS TANFIELD CHAMBERS, 2-5 WARWICK COURT, LONDON WC1R 5DJ Tel (0207) 431-5300 BARRISTER NEIL ADDISSON:-

Contact Me Like all barristers I can only represent someone in Court if I am instructed Via a Solicitor through my Chambers. If you need to contact me for any other reason, for example to discuss a possible training seminar or to provide media comment then I can be telephoned at 07970981352 or E-mail Neil Addison

Exceptionally however you can contact some barristers directly via the "public access directory"

www.barcouncil.org.uk/about/find-a-barrister/public-access-directory

Help by phone from the Bar Council Tel:-02072420082 or http://www.barristerweb.com/index.html

PSYCHOLOGIST: Dr LOWENSTEIN tel 02380692621 and website =

www.drludwigfredlowenstein.com

Dr Peter Dale (parent assessor)

Email: info@peterdale.co.uk Phone from UK: (01424) 424504 Phone international: +44 1424 424504 Fax: 08700 941 477

www.peterdale.co.uk

i just wanted to write and update you after having been assessed by peter dale i am allowed to keep my baby peter dale has also said my children have been harmed in ss care and that it has not been in their best interests as a result ss have taken a completely different attitude with me. i want to thank you for all your support and advice over the last 4 years and your attendance at the conference. i will be taking the matter further to the echr and have already launched civil proceedings for compensation. ss have been ordered to fund private therapy for my children and i owing to the harm we have all suffered from them. thank you so much ian jane (webb)

This is our support line number from outside Ireland 353-76-6024871

Yours sincerely David O Hanlon www.fact.ie

McKenzie friends:JULIE HAINES pennylilac@yahoo.co.uk Yvonne Stewart-Taylor:- ivanawatson@aol.com Chris Contouche:tel:07878896044 eryn04@hotmail.co.uk

Want to track down your adopted child or missing parent? Don't forget you can use facebook,twitter,genes united,friends united and countless other similar sites. Once found ask me for help in reuniting your family. Dear ian some really great news the girls are now at home living with us as a family ....The adoptive parents have agreed with it and are willing to do what they can to get me back my parental rights and for the girls to collect all there belongings etc from the adoptive home we are all very happy and quite shocked at the moment ...Kind Regards Tracey First however you have to find your forcibly adopted child.If you need help in this some of the following organisations might be able to help you.
www.dadpeter.co.uk

(Help parents trace their forcibly adopted children !) or

www.iwasadopted.com

THERE ARE BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS WHO ACT FREE OF CHARGE IF YOU CANNOT GET LEGAL AID:-

aHome

About the Centre | About pro bono | Sponsors | Contact

Photos

News

Welcome to the National Pro Bono Centre website. Please navigate using the menu above. << STOP PRESS: The Centre launches officially on 19th October >> The National Pro Bono Centre houses the profession's national clearing houses for legal pro bono work delivered in England and Wales: the Bar Pro Bono Unit, LawWorks (the Solicitors' Pro Bono Group) and ILEX Pro Bono Forum. The Centre is designed to be a "hub" for pro bono charities in the sector and will support the wide range of pro bono projects and brokerage which the charities support, helping individuals and community groups all over England and Wales. The coming together of the three branches of the profession in this way is an unprecedented move. It will improve joined-up thinking, co-ordination, collaborative working and a more efficient

service to all stakeholders in pro bono members of the public, and the lawyers and voluntary sector agencies serving the public. The new offices provide a central resource for people seeking pro bono legal advice and representation, making it easier for people in need to seek and receive help.

This website is a contribution in kind from The Access to Justice Foundation The National Pro Bono Centre 2010. Registered charity 1137708.
Accessibility, Privacy & Disclaimer

Please note well,you can appeal any lower court decision,whether it be a magistrates court or county court,or even crown court ! Anyone who tells you differently is a barefaced liar ! If the judge as sometimes happens says "I refuse leave to appeal" then appeal against his/her refusal,and demand an oral hearing !Go to the court and ask for the correct form for your appeal.Do not take it home ,just fill it in while you are there and ask the staff to explain the meaning of any question or anything else you do not understand.Do not delay or they may say you are out of time !Get a receipt when you leave your appeal form with the court staff !

The process is the same if you want an adoption order revoked or care order discharged ; you must ask the staff for the correct form fill it in, then hand it in and get a receipt ! To sack your solicitor and your barrister just download form N434 !If you do not do this the court will usually send all future correspondence and sometimes vital statements of evidence to your solicitor even though you have told all

concerned that you wish to represent yourself.form N434

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=581

Let me repeat!How to appeal , to apply for contact,or to oppose the renewal of an "order"(interim , contact or injunction for example) Go to the same court in the morning and ask the staff for the correct form when you have explained what you want to do.Stay in the court to fill it in and ask help from the staff if there is a question that you do not understand.They are paid to explain legal terms but NOT of course to help you make your case.Do not go home before you have finished completing the form then get a receipt after you have handed it in for the staff to file.

Welcome to the Personal Support Unit Website

The PSU is an independent charity, based in the main building at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London. The PSU provides non-legal advice, help, information and support to litigants in person and to any member of the public attending at the Royal Courts of Justice who may need help or assistance. We also operate at the Principal Registry of the Family Division at First Avenue House, High Holborn and at Wandsworth County Court. The PSU was established in January 2001 and achieved charitable status in January 2002. It is a company limited by guarantee with a board of 9 Trustees. The Courts are a daunting and intimidating place for those involved in legal proceedings. For those who do not have legal representation the difficulties

are made worse. We try to overcome these difficulties by providing practical advice and support. What we can do for you

We can go around the court building with you. We can go into court with you and stay with you during the hearing. (When the court is sitting in chambers or in private, we will need the permission of the judge and other parties). We offer emotional support and practical information about what happens in court or at the RCJ offices. We have a room where you can wait, talk through your case or just have a cup of tea. We can normally help you straightaway - just ring 020 7947 7703 .
LITIGANTS IN PERSON:- www.courtroomadvice.co.uk If you are representing yourself in court, you may be worried about what to expect. Litigants in person as they are called, often appear on their own behalf out of necessity. Although you may not think it at the moment, it can in some circumstances be quite advantageous to represent yourself. You know your case better than anyone else, and the judge and the lawyer for the other party have to help you to understand the legal issues in your case. The Judges Duty When dealing with a litigant in person it is a judges duty to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. In practical terms this means that the judge will often explain the law to you, and any procedural aspects that you need to understand for the purposes of the hearing. If the other party is represented by a lawyer, they also have to ensure that they point out not only the elements of the law that assist their case, but must also tell you the law where it assists your case (i.e. that is detrimental to their own case.) Duty Of The Other Sides Lawyers Lawyers representing the other side have to balance their obligations to their own client while not taking unfair advantage of an unrepresented party. This may mean that the lawyer has to limit their duty to act in the best interests of their own client. Although the lawyer has to help you to a certain extent, they must also be careful that any assistance you provide does not create a contractual relationship between you and the other sides lawyer. This may happen, for example, if they provide advice that you subsequently act upon. Difference Between Barrister And Solicitor

The exact nature of the duty that a lawyer owes to an unrepresented party depends on whether the lawyer is a barrister or a solicitor. A solicitors overriding duty is to his or her client. A barristers duty, however, is somewhat different. A barrister owes equal duties to the court and to his or her client. This means, for example, that a barrister cannot knowingly tell a lie to the court on behalf of his or her client. This extends to you as an unrepresented party. A barrister cannot therefore make a statement to you that they know to be false. If they unwittingly tell you something that is not true, they have to tell you as soon as they become aware of it. Conduct Of A Litigant In Person If you are representing yourself in court and the other party is represented, it is important that you do not consider the other sides lawyer to be your enemy. Lawyers in this country are well trained at dealing with litigants in person, and are under a duty to be able to assist you with understanding procedure and legal concepts where applicable. The judge or magistrate hearing your case will also have experience of dealing with litigants in person, and will be able to help you with anything that you are unsure of. If there are elements of your case that they consider you have not covered fully, or if there is more information that they require, they will as you for it. Seeking Legal Advice In some circumstances, you may arrive at court and the nature or complexity of your case may be such that you really would benefit from seeking legal advice before pursuing your case. This may happen if, for example, your case raises significant technical legal questions, or if you may be eligible for legal aid but didnt realise it, or if pursuing your case may mean that you are eligible to pay substantial costs of the other side if you lose (for example, a claim for judicial review) [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

British and Irish Legal Information Institute

Access to Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

DONATE to BAILII - Major Sponsors Welcome to BAILII, where you can find British and Irish case law & legislation, European Union case law, Law Commission reports, and other law-related British and Irish material. BAILII thanks the Practical Law Company for their recent donation which has enabled us to replace our old hardware. Our continuing gratitude goes to The Society for Computers & Law for their substantial sponsorship. For more information, see About BAILII.

Here are some really appalling statistics for you. If a Social Worker decides your child should be taken into care,do you think you stand a chance? Look at these figures from the England and Wales Judicial statistics. Look at 2004s figures for example when 8,493 applications for a care order were made to the court and only 11, yes I said 11 Care Orders were refused. Great, that means you have a 0.01% chance of winning in court! Why?Because the legal aid solicitors are "professional losers" so the only parents who win are those happy few who sack their lawyers and represent themselves!They at least have a nearly 50-50 chance ! Much better to send children to Foster/Adoptive Hell where they are statistically seven times more likely to be abused and shockingly three times more likely to die during childhood than if they were at home with their natural parents. Of course there are many foster and adoptive families who are doing an excellent job at bringing up their children, but sadly this is a rare phenomenon. For most children, the care system is the last place on earth which could be considered a safe haven (see Hollie Greig case for example.) CARE APPLICATIONS 2004 APPLICATIONS MADE 8,493 ORDERS REFUSED 11 NO ORDERS 306 WITHDRAWN 201 ORDERS MADE 7,796 (only 11 times did a judge actually refuse a care order) CARE APPLICATIONS 2005 APPLICATIONS MADE 9,146 ORDERS REFUSED 10 NO ORDERS 92 WITHDRAWN 201 ORDERS MADE 8,849 (only 10 times did a judge actually refuse a care order) CARE APPLICATIONS 2006 APPLICATIONS MADE 7,849 ORDERS REFUSED 12 NO ORDERS 289 WITHDRAWN 325 ORDERS MADE 7,222 (only 12 times did a judge actually refuse a care order)

CARE APPLICATIONS 2007 APPLICATIONS MADE 8,273 ORDERS REFUSED 23 NO ORDERS 290 WITHDRAWN 336 ORDERS MADE 7,624 (only 23 times did a judge actually refuse a care order) CARE APPLICATIONS 2008 APPLICATIONS MADE 7,640 ORDERS REFUSED 20 NO ORDERS 245 WITHDRAWN 258 ORDERS MADE 7,077 (only 20 times did a judge actually refuse a care order) SOURCE: England and Wales Judicial Statistics

From the law library o congress Republc of Ireland proving the point I think !

Northampton County Council v. ABF and MBF,18 the return of a child to England was refused, because doing so would have created an adoption without consent of one of the parents. In this decision, the Court relied heavily on article 41 of the Irish Constitution. It understood article 41 to grant the father the right to enforce his rights as the natural father in a foreign jurisdiction. The Court believed that this result was in concert with the protection of the rights of the father and the infant pursuant to article 41. Baby Ann Judgments of the Irish Supreme Court made on 13 November 2006 We provide links below to the Judgments made by the five Supreme Court Justices in

the hearing labelled by the media as the "Baby Ann Adoption" case. These judgments represent a landmark in family law. The principle of the case itself is simply that a baby cannot be adopted from a Married Family against the wishes of the parents. What is remarkable and commendable of the majority of the Justices (see Hardiman J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J) is that they have seized this opportunity to reverse the slippage in the Rule of Law - the established law of the Family - that custom and practice, as exercised in the family law courts, especially the lower courts, has steadily eroded in the past 40 years.

A family that made a successful escape would like to give others some helpful advice !
Dear Ian, I would like to thank you for the advice you gave me, it was the best think we did in coming here.. We found a lot of help and support from the entire community here and our case ended last fri after only meeting with irish social workers once.. There are so many ways that the people here help and guide you through, they also will willing speak up for you if needs be.. My advice to all parents who come is is to declare yourself and become an active member of the community, not to hide as i did for the 1st 3 weeks we where here, if i had my case would of ended 3 weeks earlier.. So once again thank you for your help and advice Yours sincerely Julia Hamilton Dear Ian; If you put my other email which is lil-imp@live.co.uk that would be the best one for me to use and my number is +353894486572.. I hope I can help others to get out of trap they set for us in the uk.. Many people here in Ireland help willingly, police, solicitors and even social workers here do all they can to help put you back on track and stop the damage thats been done.. Your sincerely Julia Hamilton

Dear Ian We spoke with you on Tuesday 27/04/10 and left for Ireland the next day. We just wanted to thank you and to keep you updated on progress. Back at home, on DAY 1 [Wednesday 28th April], Social Services had the Police put Baby and Mother on the missing persons list, immediately. The UK Police paid aggressive visits, threatening the Mother's Parents and Ex-Partner with all kinds of action if they didn't tell them where Mother and Baby are. The Police and Social Services ignored an email from Mother, sent the next morning - Thursday 29th April. Yesterday [Friday 30th April] the Police paid more aggressive visits to Mother's Parents, Ex-

Partner and Solicitor - we'd C.C.ed him on the email we sent to them - stating this was done so they could not refute the email's existence. The Police conducted more raids back home, also stating that Mother and Baby would be put on the National Evening News as missing, that night. We had to make all that go away, so sought advice from the Citizens Information Centre here in Dublin and on their advice, took Mother and Baby's ID down to the Police Station. They were kind and seemed sympathetic. We spent the rest of the day in the Police Station, baby was checked over by a GP, then we spent the evening in the Childrens Hospital and Mother and Baby saw Social Services there. The good news: last night Irish Social Services took the case from the UK. As you may remember, there were no care orders on Baby, just a CPP [Child Protection Plan] so it is easier in this case than for those who have already been rubber-stamped by a judge for removal from the family. Thank God we got out in time! And thank YOU for your help! We had a last few minutes of reflection that maybe we COULD make this go away if we stayed in the UK and moved town. Well we'll never know but if there was even a 1% risk of Baby being taken, it wasn't one we were willing to take. And now, FOR SURE Mother and Baby are FREE!! Yippee! Thank you so much Ian. Were it not for your website, we would NEVER have realised what was going on in the first place, until it was too late. You are brilliant, caring and kind. OK, now we're off to build a new life for the little one here, which we're so glad to be free to do! Best wishes Suzanne - Friend of Mother and Baby! PS:Absolutely. We'd be delighted for you to post the email. You might also like to add the following info on travel/arrival if it'll be helpful to others....

The ferry was very cheap and easy. We didn't need passports. The Irish Ferries website tells you what ID you can use. We bought SailRail tickets for just 30 - a one-way fare, all the way from Euston Station in London to Central Dublin [where the ferry pulls in]. You can SailRail from lots of UK cities. Check the Irish Ferries website for the SailRail deal and travel/connection times.
One tip: try and avoid the last ferry of the day if you are doing SailRail. The train stopped short of our train change point of Chester, and put us off at Crewe instead. This made us miss our connecting train. The Virgin Driver made an announcement claiming a train had broken down on the line just ahead. It hadn't - and according to the driver of the replacement train driver [of the non-Virgin train!] at Crewe, Virgin does this VERY REGULARLY. It meant we didn't make our connecting train.

So instead we took a train from Chester to Llandudno Junction [part of the way to Holyhead] and luckily, the train guard knew the name of a cab firm in Conwy, which is near Llandudno. If anyone finds themselves in a similar fix, the cab firm is Castle Cabs and their number is 01492 593 398. We hired a big 8 seater which cost 60 - a smaller vehicle would be less. If anyone gets in this fix, ask around as other travellers trying to get the ferry in time will be more than glad to share the fare with you! The journey from Llandudno Junction to Holyhead by taxi was 40 minutes - and they're happy to stop at the cash-machine in Conwy if you need to. At Dublin: There's a cashpoint right outside the exit of Dublin Ferryport to draw Euros. Dublin Hotels can be expensive and many charge per person, per night. We got a room at Holiday Inn, in Pearse Street, Central Dublin, for 59 Euros TOTAL per night which is a good deal here. The room is huge and comfortable with an en-suite bathroom, and two vast double beds. They have cots if you need one and plenty of space to put them up. The Holiday Inn is in Central Dublin and very close to the Ferryport [do ask for the Pearse Street one, as there's also one near the airport!] OK, that's all for now. We'll keep you updated on progress and share any other information as we go, that might help others. Meantime, thank you again Ian!
----- Original Message ----From: argiz@europe.com To: ian@monaco.mc ; ianjosephs@monaco.mc Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:34 PM Subject: The destruction of the family and children

Mr. Joseph: I have familiarized myself with the contents of your web site and decided to write you while hoping that my time and effort will not be in vain. It is not easy to write on a complex and sensitive subject to a stranger but the nature of the matter is so important and urgent that I believe it is worth the effort while hoping that the other side will understand and act upon it. My name is Robert Argiz, former US resident now living in Spain and involved in matters related to any injustice or abuse against children in general, particularly in areas connected with rape and sexual exploitation, satanic cult rituals, and stealing and/or kidnapping of children by strangers or the State. What I learnt at your web site is that you specialize in legal advice to people who have been victimized already or could become victims of some criminal activity against their children such as forced adoption by illegal and false methods which in essence is child stealing. I want to become involved in the legal aspect of your work but only to a certain point. Following are the areas in which I could participate: 1) Assist women on how they can have their child born in Spain at home and not in a hospital to avoid official control of these places.

2) Assist families with language communication if they do not speak or understand Spanish 3) Explore the possibility of filing a criminal complaint against the social services at the European Court of Human Rights in Brussels to expose the criminal activity by social workers acting on behalf of the government. 4) Study the possibility to bring the on-going criminal practice of stealing children to the attention of the UN body of nations. 5) Assist in creating a fund to assist people who want to leave the UK and come to Spain due to the uncovered policy of stealing kids from parents. 6) Instill in people the urgent need to create UNITY to fight the criminals seeking the destruction of the traditional family and kids. I think that people are too vulnerable and need to know who and where they can call or go when urgencies arrive at their front door and having a phone number where they can call or an Internet address where they can write in their language can help or prevent a tragedy from taking place. There is much to say or write on this subject and since this mail is only an introduction, I will leave it here hoping that my sincere written words are given consideration. Thanks for your time and attention. Robert Argiz
Dear Ian, I would like to thank you for the advice you gave me, it was the best think we did in coming here.. We found a lot of help and support from the entire community here and our case ended last fri after only meeting with irish social workers once.. There are so many ways that the people here help and guide you through, they also will willing speak up for you if needs be.. My advice to all parents who come is is to declare yourself and become an active member of the community, not to hide as i did for the 1st 3 weeks we where here, if i had my case would of ended 3 weeks earlier.. So once again thank you for your help and advice Yours sincerely Julia FRANCE ! Advice from Florence Bellone :-flobellone@ntlworld.com
For people with passports who have no ressources to live in emergency, here is a list for emergency residence and safe birth in Paris. CHRS means Centre d'Hbergement et de rinsertion sociale. If it's a big deal to go in a country without knowing the language, it's not such a big deal for young parents to learn French in France. Knowing English is a + when it comes to look for a job. Please don't go there with long term benefits life in mind, it won't work long and will just make people thinking that we push to a benefit tourism when it's all about keeping your children and looking for a decent life.

The 115 number is an emergency number for homeless people, victims of DV or other problem which you to be "in the street". If you call it they will put somebody speaking English to answer you. You will say where you are and they would pick you up and bring to a refuge. I think it's simpler to go directly to one when it is possible. I recommand the refuges specialised in DV for British women when ss precisely wanted to take your children because of this in the UK. The concept of punishing the victim of DV by removing her children will make French ss sick and you will find sympathy after they would have asked you to repeat 3 times what they can't believe they heard.

I also can supervise every exit/arrival and providing a letter, and don't hesitate to bring any letter of family, doctor, MP, etc... I will brief a refuge where you will come. (But Ian, please don't put my datas on your website as some critic will eventually denunce the journalist...) In the unlikely case where a zealous worker would tell British Consulate of your existence, they still can't bring you back to the UK without showing the crime that you have committed. For pregnant women, no risk at all as your child will be born in France. I advise to get him a French ID card first thing but don't come back anyway in the UK with him or her because ss have already snatched French ID cards thanks to I don't know which Brussels clause. Right now a solicitor I can't name is using French court judgement saying that an English mom of 5 sent to court on British ss demand ( she was living in France) is a very good mother and that she should be left alone (unfortunately the mom had come back to the UK with her brood and French judges don't impress much the British ones). As long as you are in France the worse that British ss can obtain is to send you to court but we have no law to remove children if you didn't beat, starve or rape them. In France only French ss are allowed to check a family. British ss will queue for the Eiffel Tower if they like it. And the diplomacy has not yet beatten common sense when foreign police claim an innocent family. The first refuge is the one I went to speak to the staff :
Cit SaintMartin - Le Village 4 rue de l'arsenal 75004 Paris CHRS tous publics, femmes, hommes seuls, familles. Admission immdiate en urgence. (230 pl). 01.44.61.89.90 01.44.61.04.07

Mission Sans Domicile Fixe Mdecins du Monde

62 bis, Service d'urgence et centre de avenue soins. Admission immdiate en Parmentier urgence. 75011 Paris

01.43.14.81.81 01.47.00.75.53

Maison d'accueil pour femmes "glantine" site internet

21 rue de la CHU pour femmes avec enfants ou 01.44.40.40.50 01.44.40.40.46 Salneuve enceintes, rgularises et sur 75017 Paris Paris (pour les sans papiers, l'admission se fait par le 115). Capacit d'accueil de 150 pl. (dont 40pl. en urgence) dans 60 chbres. Admission en urgence par le 115, ou par un travailleur social.

Halte Aide Femmes Battues

14 rue CHRS pour femmes avec enfants Mendelssohn de + de 3 ans ayant au maximum 75020 Paris 3 enfants. Admission immdiate en urgence. (30 pl).

01.43.48.20.40 01.43.48.81.50

Foyer Trvise 12 cit du C.A.S.P. Trvise (Centre 75009 Paris d'Action Sociale Protestante) site internet

CHRS de stabilisation et d'urgence 01.48.24.54.79 01.48.24.54.79 pour femmes seules. 45 pl.. Admission par le 115 (30 pl. rserves au 115 et 15 pl. au service d'accueil CASP)

. CHRS Crime 166 rue de Crime 75019 Paris CHRS pour femmes seules et avec enfants. Accueil d'urgence pour des priodes de 15 jours renouvelables. (123 pl). 01.40.36.17.60 01.40.36.19.46

ARFOG

21 avenue du Gnral Michel Bizot 75012 Paris

CHRS pour femmes avec ou sans enfants . Admission immdiate en urgence. Ple d'insertion collectif (68 pl.); ple d'insertion en appt (98 pl.); et 1 ple d'urgence (32 pl).

01.44.75.76.10 01.44.75.76.19 email

On the following lists it is need to check the kind of public they welcome in a choosen place because not all refuges are housing in emergency and they have often a speciallity, for example, women only or couples but no childre, etc... Provinces : http://annuaire.action-sociale.org/?cat=centre-hebergement---reinsertion-sociale--c-h-r-s---214 Here another list : http://www.quiaccueillequi.org/fiches/activite.php?colonne=Acti_M&from=%2Ffiches%2Fresultat_recherc he_simple.php%3Fkeyword%3D

March 21, 2010...5:17 pm

UK DV victims fleeing their abusers (ex partners,social services,family court judges,Cafcass etc..)- A survival guide
Jump to Comments The truth of the matter is since emotional harm was added into the children act as a form of abuse, UK government departments have branched out in all areas of emotional welfare concerning children and

child protection.

Marco born in one of Malaga's hospitals As with my own story one of the saddest situations for women today are those who are or have been involved with reporting domestic violence are at serious risk of losing their children. From the moment a mother picks up the phone to the police and reports her partner or ex partner for domestic violence her children are ear marked for removal and adoption. Brutal you say? yes the law is brutal unless you can prove you can protect yourself and your children from the abuserbut of course you say isnt it the police and criminal courts job to do that..well erm actually according to the social services and a family court judge no injunction will protect mother because either father will not take notice or mother will break the order herself because she is weak and in love with him. If you report DV more than once YOU WILL be branded weak and EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE putting your love interests before the interests of your children (apparently). Social services will also throw in a few bits about the children being untidy or aggressive for good measure in their reports be it true or in most cases NOT.This is how social services persuade a judge to put a care order on your children so they can be removed from you and taken into foster care. Anyone who has read John Hemmings or LyndaMac blogs will know that doctors who are appointed by the family court otherwise known as expert witnesses are in a league of their own. These doctors are paid for by the social services, Cafcass and your legal aid (if you represent yourself no wonder the court want you to get a solicitor asap or the expenses is down to everyone else!). Now i am not saying all doctors are total quacks Mystic Megs I know it all types, but I would say in their own field they most certainly think they know it all otherwise they wouldnt be on the expert witness panel of Court certified Doctors would they? (you can find these just google expert witnesses). I wont go into the Psychobabble of expert witnesses who are used as a weapon of mass destruction against you in court as I want to save this topic for the future and in great detail in my book. For now I want to concentrate on where does a woman who is in the situation where she is on the brink of losing her children? Ok please take note of the following..

Republic Of Ireland

Is classed as the common travel area and the social security system is linked with the UKs. If you are unemployed you can claim your benefits in Ireland just as you would in UK, what you cannot get away with is claiming in both countries, it is LINKED!. Emotional harm does exist in Irelands child protection (although only extreme harm and with EVIDENCE of such not like in the UK where it is on possibility) but from my experience and knowledge they DO NOT take children from a parent who has suffered and/or reported domestic violence. So if that if your problem then go and build your children a new life away from your abuser. If you choose not to keep your abuser away then repeated DV will not go unnoticed and you may well both be pulled into court and have exclusion orders slapped on you, break these and your children will be at risk of going into care but not adopted as it is illegal to adopt a child against the parents wishes here. You will need in order 1) PPS number from your City social welfare/tax office (take as much ID as you can for you and your children) you can get your PPS numbers by ringing up after a few days ,quote your reference number) 2)Take your PPS numbers to your LOCAL social welfare office and apply for single parent whilst you find a job or not depending on what you want to do. 3) Go to www.daft.ie and find a landlord/property who will accept rent allowance 4) Find your local Clinic this tends to be a doctors and in there will be a supplementary welfare officer for you to claim weekly money and rent allowance whilst your single parent claim goes through.Register at the doctors whilst your there and apply for a health card and the health nurse. If you feel it necessary approach social services as i did and tell them why you are here they maybe able to offer you some assistance in a good form and not one that is intrusive or threatening like what you have experienced with British social workers.http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.as px 5) Apply for child benefit, to get this you must provide a letter from the local school confirming the attendance of your child or if child is under 5 a letter from your doctor confirming registration.

Spain
Do not go to Spain if you need to rely on the benefits system (unless you are a pensioner of course), this is most unfortunate for people with disabilities but i will find a solution eventually! To survive in Spain you must work, here is a quick survival guide. 1) Emotional harm does not exist in Spain so unless you have been accused of physical ,sexual or neglect against a child you WILL keep your children. For domestic violence issues it is pretty much the same as Ireland except they may well throw the woman into prison if you continue to break any exclusion orders against your partner purely because you are wasting police and court time reporting your abuser! In the high-profile cases of Megan Coote and Sam Hallimond and partner Vanessa both concerning Suffolk social services here is the differencehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1255458/British-parents-fled-Spain-stop-social-services-kidnapping-baby-week-old-son-taken-Spanishauthorities.html The Spanish Authorities say Megan gets to keep her baby as it was future emotional harm that the UK were seeking to remove the baby for (doesnt exist in Spain at the moment). Regarding Sam and Vanessas 1st baby Daisy initially removed also on the basis of future risk of emotional harm, baby number 2 was removed by Spanish Authorities because Suffolk decided to change tactics from using emotional harm to at risk of physical harm. A risk and accusation Suffolk cannot prove according to the parents paperwork, so lets hope that if it is the case of Suffolk being liars the Spanish see this and return the baby. The problem UK fear with this case is if the baby is returned to Sam and Vanessa the 1st baby

Daisy will surely have to be returned to the parents, if not there is a case for the courts of European rights if one country orders a child for adoption and another leaves child to stay in the birth family! The tax payer would be looking at paying a 6 figure sum for a case gone wrong like that as in my own case (Ill get there). 2) After finding accommodation http://www.enalquiler.com go to your main police station with ID and apply for your NIE numbers (this is for residence the same as Irelands PPS) It is preferable to get someone to look after your children to do this and then present your children to the officer at the end. I paid someone 200 euros to queue for me (these people are easy to find) queuing starts around 3am to be guaranteed a ticket as the police only give out a certain amount a day. 3)When you have your NIE after about 7 days take this to the town hall along with your tenancy agreement and get your empadronamientohttp://valencia.angloinfo.com/countries/spain/empadronamiento.asp 4) When you have your empadronamiento take this paperwork to the social security office (Seguridad Social) and apply for your tax number. Apparently if you have a national insurance tax contributions certificate (E301) makes life a lot easier for the Spanish otherwise register as self employed for the minimum tax to pay a month or if you are lucky enough to get a job with an employer that will pay your tax you have things much simpler! As a single mother you can apply for 100 euro a month childcare if under 3 yrs of age and 100 euro a month child benefit but i think this is per household? someone please correct me. Also there is a new scheme where the housing department (find out at your town hall) where they will pay 258 euros a month towards your rent. There is also a payment from social security for mothers who can receive 2500 euros when they give birth but i was unable to get this as i had not been living in Spain for more than a year. I do understand however you might be able to claim this up to 2 years after giving birth if you continue to live in Spain.

Lucas holding Marco! 5) Take your social security number with your empadronamiento to the doctors to register you and your children for free health care and a health check which is needed to get them into state school. You can

register with a european health card and get your childs health check this way but most doctors will only issue you with a temporary card, if you do it this way you will have to say you are living temporary in Spain for a year maybe. 6)Get your children into school, you can put children in from age 3 but it is compulsory to have them in school full-time at age 6. Finally i would like to thank the kind people who have helped me from Catholic churches in Spain and in Ireland, from having baby items such as blankets, carry cots, car seats, childrens clothes bought and even made with their bare hands. I once wrote a prayer whilst on the ferry over to france on June 27th 2007 asking if their was a god to protect us from the British authorities and let there be people during our time on the run who would be kind enough to help us survive..and there was. Although a warning to people who are adamant on crossing boarders into other countries not everyone is so kind and there are people who will use your weaknesses to their advantage because they also need to survive. Just be careful who you tell your life story to because no matter which way you look at it you become even more vulnerable away from friends and family and your priority is to keep safe, survive and surround yourself with good people and the church is a good place to start to connect with. Another successful escape !! hello my good friend, friend of humanity! Me and Amaani and Daddy have finally made it to Dubai! Got here last night, thought i will let you know. We were in France, yesterday, had taken a ferry to Cherbourg from Ireland drove to Paris, Paris to Bahrain, Bahrain to Dubai.My God it has been an adventure and tiring too! we are celebrating parental love my god how cheeky are the British Authorities to infringe on something so natural,pure and perfect, we will love our daughter, we will cuddle our daughter till earths end. My friend thank you, thank you for all your help and a cuddle for you too kind regards shahnaz xxxxx AND AGAIN !This time escape to N cyprus! dear ian

i wonder if you rember me? i am abby ozari and you graciousely helped and advised me in january of this year on my alful fight with brighton social services with regards to my three small children. i had moved town to get away from an abusive ex husband and suddenly social sevices were in mine and my childrens lives, acusing me of infliecting emotional halm as they had witnessed thier farther and i argue, yes just that! my children were put on brightons child protection list after my ex had left the family home in november 2009 and so begain the most helish two months of my life. let me just say that my childhood was horrific. i was a child carer to my mentaly ill mother, missed years of school and was in and out of care. dispite all of this nuthing could prpere me for the emotional termoil that ss in brighton in flicted on my family. as you often say ian, you couldnt make it up! thier farther cem stayed away as instructed by ss, i went to thier pointless dv classes, i enroled in parenting classes although my parenting of the children had never been in question. yet all the time, day by day i had this mounting uneasyness inside, as if something truely terrible were about to happen. i lost my first born son back in 2000 and since then have not been able to face the fear that something alful could happen to any of my three beautiful children. at one social worker visit, i came down with a miagrane, a condition i havdnt sufferd from in years, i belive due to the deep fear i had of my childrren being taken from me, and put into care. i didnt for a second want them to experance what i had 20 odd years back, especialy as the uk 'care' system seem to be 100 times worse these day. my children are very beautiful and bright. they stood out in the thier

local state primary and witout sounding boastful, people in brighton would often stand and stere at them. i now belive my children were definatly ear marked for forced adoption by brighton ss, this was the source of my mounting fear though i could not articulate it properly even to myself until i thankfully stumbled apon you wonderful forced adoption site late one night. oh, what a help and a god send it was! each night as my children slept i read your site, over and over until i realised, along with a talking to you on the fone that ss did indeed want my babies and i had to get them out of england if at all possible. in many many ways i was very lucky, the farther of my children cem is terkish cypriot and his family have quite a big property out there. as you know british law has no bearing in north cyprus, so if i could just get to cyprus before a care order was issued, my children would be safe! i worked closely with my mother inlaw, who in a bid to isolate me and the children, had been forbiddern from brighton ss to visit us, even though she had come from cyprus at christmas time just to see them! together, we got the childrens passports, packed and with in about three weeks had tickets and were ready to get the children out of the country. all this time thier farther cems supervised visits with the children had been rearanged and canciled i belive in a bid to make him flip and lose his rag with ss which to his credit he did not. i had been presured by a wicked solicoter who was obviously in bed with brighton ss to get an injunction against cem although thier was no real violence in the relationship and he had never hurt his kids. this same soliciter told me that there were MORE CHILDREN TAKEN IN TO CARE FROM MY TINY COUNCIL ESTATE OF WHITEHAWLK IN BRIGHTON than the whole of london! if this didnt ring alam bells with me than i dont know what did! at your advice i did not get an injunction against cem, althought i stalled and led ss in to beliving that i would. im so glad i did not as if i had cem would not have been able to take the children to cyprus with his mother and i would have been in prison for braking the injunction no doubt! things had been bad between thier dad and me for some 2 years and we had just got a lovely council house in brighton with enough room for the children that we had been doing up. as a child i dreamed of living in a 3 bed house with a garden when i grew up as my family life was non existant and i was reluctant to just up and leave the home id got for my children, they adored the house, every night my doughter mia thanked god for it in her prears. i also know my family would be very hard up in cyprus as no benifit system, if i stayed and worked for a while i could at lest send money. i also was afraid that ss would somehow follow us and take the children any way and as im bright i felt i could fight any care ordes issued win and at some point bring my children home to england if i stayed behind for a while. brighton ss did issue a care order, issued by none other than the wiked judge coats herself! someone i know youve come across before. i rember at the first hearing she orded tipstaff and all sorts of legal cloat to go afer my children although they were in north cyprus! i rember standing up, represning myself saying, 'my children have not been kidnapped your honour.' maybe i should not have said that because i belive that gave the alful women idears. i am not stupid and had given thier farther a letter signed by me stating that i fully agreed for cem to take his children to cyprus for as long as we both sor fit. i stated as we were still married he and i had full parental authority to do this. even so, british ss promptly contacted the british embassy in north cyprus saying that I had complaned to british ss that thier dad cem had kidnapped them! again, you couldnt make it up! what a wicked bareface lie. i knew that brit ss wanted my children badly! i emailed my mother in law and thier dad, this very fact, they had to go to brit embassy and present my email and the letter i had given them the next day. if they had not i belive bitish ss would have gone to cyprus to try and snach my children! luckily they belived us and not brit ss. a childs gardian went to cyprus to see the children and reported that they were doing very well and brit ss should drop the care order against my children which thnakfully they did. i had hoped that i could join my children abroad but it wasnt to be. i had got a job and was sending money but i didnt realize we had to put my kids in private schools in

cyprus as normal schools are not tought in english, at first i was happy as my kids are very bright and private schools thier are much cheeper than in the uk. also my relatiship with cem had sufferd terribaly through all the stress of ss, they had really set us up against eachother, and what with our previouse problems soon he emailed me stateing that he wanted a divorce. i was to lose my children, not to ss but to thier farher. i am still living with this alful knowledge and pain and its crippling me. whilst im so greatfull that the children are safe and well, and i speak to them on scipe most days, i cant be with them everyday, and its aln alful greaf. they left in jaunuary and i havnt been out to see them yet as thier farther insists on a divorce before i go out to see my childen, also as i am sending most of my money to support them in thier private schools, i havnt had the money to go yet. even so i am so greatful that they are not in care, we get on ok and thier farther and i agree we will never bring them back to the uk for fear of ss trying to take them again, we just cant risk it. i have met a new patner who is a business man and we have talked about bying a small property in cyprus so that i can spend evey holyday with my children. this would be a god send and its something we are working towards. i want to thank you ian so much for all your help and insight and i really want to help other familys like mine fight british ss. iv read the uk collum and belive brian garrish is a god send. the new acadamy schools will be used in the uk to brain wash our children and i am so thankfull in many ways that my childrern will not have to experance that as they will grow up in cyprus now. if you would like to print any of my story or put my contact details on your website i would be very honnerd. the care order has been dropped and i have not been gaged! i would love to become a mcenzi friend or write a book about my experances with child social services to help others and i wonder if you have any advice on this? please email or call me any time. my number is 07577889711. thanks again for all your help and kindness, please give my deltals to other familys who might need advice from someone whos been where they are. i look forward to hearing from you. from abby ozari

Don't just take my word for the rest of my allegations.Please read the following articles from the Daily Mail,and the Sunday Telegraph as they very accurately depict the mounting and highly justified public disquiet over the secret family courts and the "adoption industry".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html ?in_article_id=465563&in_page_id=1770

Courts won't reveal rulings in adoption cases

By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 1:44am BST 08/08/2007

Pauline Goodwins baby was taken from her but she was denied a copy of the judgment. The court service has now apologised Family courts are refusing to tell mothers why their babies are being taken away and put up for forced adoption. Two mothers have told The Sunday Telegraph that their pain at losing their children was made worse by not knowing the grounds on which judges took the decisions. Both women had their requests for copies of the judgments turned down repeatedly. As a result, they were prevented from launching legal battles to win their babies back, because appeals cannot be lodged without -written judgments. Critics claimed that the cases are an extreme example of the secrecy that runs throughout the family court system. Earlier this summer, the Government abandoned plans to open up hearings to the media. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, said: "It seems quite strange that somebody can have their child removed and adopted, and the system will not give reasons. "This arises from the secrecy of proceedings and the fact that people are allowed to misbehave professionally in the family courts without any fear of sanctions against them." The cases are the latest in a series highlighted by this newspaper which have raised concerns about the workings of the family courts and social services. It included a professional couple who had their daughter taken away because the mother has a history of mental illness and the father was "confrontational" towards social workers, while another couple were told they cannot have their two daughters back despite being cleared of allegations of abuse. Last year, 2,120 babies were taken for adoption before their first birthday, almost three times as many as a decade ago. Adoptions leapt after councils were offered cash incentives to increase the number. One of the latest cases involved Pauline Goodwin, 39, from Merseyside, who suffered a breakdown after her marriage ended. As she struggled to cope, her baby girl, born in 2005, was

taken away by social services at birth. At a court hearing in June last year, held at a time when she was temporarily homeless, Judge Wallwork ruled at Liverpool Family Court that the baby should remain in foster care. The mother says she was told that despite the outcome of the case, the judgment would not be critical of her. However, in the 14 months since the hearing, her repeated requests to obtain a copy of the judgment have proved fruitless. She has been told by social workers that her daughter has now been adopted. She said: "They had my baby adopted, then they said they make no findings against me, but they won't give me the court order. I need the judgment because I want to lodge an appeal. It's supposed to be within 28 days but it has been more than 12 months. "If they give me the transcripts I can prove the whole thing was wrong, and my baby wouldn't be where she is now, she would be with me." Sharon Harkness, 37, also from Merseyside, won the first round of her courtroom battle when social workers tried to take her baby son away. In August 2005, at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Holman turned down a bid by a local authority to take the boy, then only three months old, into foster care. However, at Liverpool Family Court in November, Judge Roddy reversed the earlier decision and granted the council a care order. The baby was removed from his family and is now living with prospective adoptive parents. In the intervening 21 months, repeated requests by Mrs Harkness for a written judgment have been refused or ignored. She said: "It's within my rights to at least see the kind of care order they've put my son on. It's like they've taken my baby and forgotten to give me the receipt." At one point she tried to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, only to be told that the court could not consider her case because she had no written judgment on which to base it. At the end of last week, after The Sunday Telegraph took up the cases with the Judicial Communications Office in London, officials issued an apology within hours and finally pledged that both women would receive the vital documents within days. In Miss Goodwin's case, a spokesman said: "Her Majesty's Court Service would like to apologise that in this case, the transcripts were not provided as requested. There appears to have been a breakdown in communications. The transcription company will prepare the transcripts next week and once they are approved by the judge, the court will send them out." Regarding Mrs Harkness, the spokesman said: "There was an ambiguity in the original order which had not been corrected and caused a delay in the process. The transcript has now been produced and is with the judge, prior to being sent to the family next week."

Pauline (story and photo above) has learned a lot during her 3 year struggle with the "SS" .She now helps and advises other parents in distress and also organises demonstrations.
-----------------------

My baby will be taken from me the moment it's born

By HELEN WEATHERS Daily Mail 6th September 2007 The link below connects to a video of a very informative itv programme:-

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/Media/Bill-Bache_John -Hemming_Fran-Lyon_ITV-ThisMorning02-11- 07.wmv

The daughter of teachers and with a glittering academic future, Fran was delighted when she became pregnant. But social services discovered the illness she thought she'd put behind her - and will confiscate her daughter when she is born...

Fran Lyon is due to give birth to her first child - a daughter she has already named Molly - on January 3. But the prospect, far from being one of joyous anticipation, fills her with a dread that keeps her awake at night. It's not because Fran doesn't want the child. She does. Desperately. And not because she is frightened of the pain of labour. She is prepared for that. It is what happens afterwards that fuels Fran's anxiety. And there can be no preparation for that pain. For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications, Molly will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have instructions to take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster care. The 22-year-old will then be transferred from the maternity wing to a gynaecological ward, because Northumberland Council has decided that Fran - who has never harmed anyone in her life - is potentially a risk to other mothers and their babies. Fran has no idea if she will be able to touch her baby, even for a minute, before leaving hospital alone, or if she will ever get her daughter back. Her biggest fear is that she won't, and that Molly will be put up for adoption.

'It is incredibly upsetting not knowing if I will be allowed even to hold my baby,' says Fran, a charity worker. 'Until social services became involved in my life, I was having a normal pregnancy and was full of excitement. 'They have taken away what should be the most precious time in my life - and I will never get that back. I'm already in love with my baby. I can feel her moving, I talk to her. I've bought her baby books and clothes. You just can't undo

that attachment.' Fran is an intelligent and articulate woman. She has nine Astarred GCSEs, five grade A A-levels and is in the third year of a neuroscience degree at Edinburgh University which she is completing at home in Hexham, Northumberland.
However, what concerns Hexham Children's Services, which is part of Northumberland Council, is Fran's medical history. Having had a difficult relationship with her parents, who are teachers in good state schools, from the age of 15, she started selfharming. Fran spent three years - on and off - in psychiatric hospitals. Her problems appear to have begun when she was raped by an acquaintance at the age of 14. Diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, she was discharged from a therapeutic facility in 2002, where she had spent 13 months, and spent nine months as an outpatient. Today, she needs no medication and, according to her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, 'has made a significant recovery to the point where her difficulties are indistinguishable from those of much of the general population'. In a letter to Northumberland Council, Dr Newrith, who treated Fran for a year when she was 16 and has known her for many years, stated: 'There has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm.' Furthermore, she said: 'I would view the removal of Fran's baby as an extraordinarily heavy-handed gesture. It is also my professional opinion that doing so would be an infringement of Fran's human rights, as it would be much the same as removing a child from someone from the general population.' Yet on August 16, a child protection case conference recommended that Fran's baby should be taken away at birth - a decision based in part on the contents of a letter from consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Ward Platt, who has never met Fran and could not be present at the meeting. In his letter, Dr Ward Platt states that 'even in the absence of psychological assessment, if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available that [this woman] probably does fabricate or induce illness, there would be no option but to put the baby into foster care at birth pending a post-natal forensic psychological assessment'. However, he warned that it was necessary first to establish as far as possible whether or not Fran does suffer from this illness - something Fran claims they have failed to do. Fran has never been diagnosed with this condition, yet she has nevertheless been deemed by Northumberland Council as someone likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a controversial and unproven condition in which a parent - usually the mother - makes up or induces an illness in her child to draw attention to herself. And so, unless a judicial review next week rules in Fran's favour, her baby Molly will almost certainly be taken away at birth.

'I can understand why they might have concerns about my past, but the speed with which they have come to this conclusion, despite the evidence of my own psychiatrist, is terrifying,' she says. 'I was at the case conference and it lasted just ten minutes. 'This letter from Dr Ward Platt was given to me just five minutes before the meeting started, and when it was produced, the chairman said there was no point - in the light of what this letter stated - even considering the other evidence which I wanted to present, which was letters of support from psychiatrists. 'I think they simply panicked, and when people panic they make, in my opinion, bad judgments. I left that meeting numb with shock. I'd had absolutely no time to digest the letter or argue my case, and I was so horrified at what they'd said that I just couldn't even begin to respond to it. 'I have never harmed anyone in my life. I have no criminal convictions. I believe I can be a good mother to Molly - but they are not even prepared to give me a chance to prove that. 'I have offered to stay in a mother and baby unit after Molly's birth for as long as they want, and to be monitored. I would be prepared to stay there for 18 years if it meant I could be with my baby. But that, it seems, is not even an option.' Fran's case is far from unusual. Two thousands babies under one year old were taken from their parents last year by social services - three times the number ten years ago. Critics believe councils are doing this to help meet government adoption 'targets'. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, certainly thinks so. 'How can it be in the child's best interests to take a baby away from its mother at birth? The reason why they do it is because it's much harder to take away a baby the longer it spends with its mother, and a healthy newborn baby is so much easier to find adoptive parents for. 'It is estimated that 97 per cent of babies taken away from their mothers at birth, on the basis that the mothers are "capable of emotional abuse", are never returned to them - and that is simply scandalous. 'Of course, there are cases where it is right to do so, but the whole public family law system is corrupt because of the secrecy which surrounds it. Decisions are based on opinion and conjecture, rather than fact and evidence. 'What does Fran's case tell us? That no woman who has been raped or had mental health problems can be allowed to have a baby, even years later? 'What could be more traumatic than for a mother to have her baby taken away at birth? It's monstrous. That, in itself, can cause mental health problems, which is then used by social services against the mother as a reason not to return the baby. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. 'There has been a massive increase in younger babies being taken into care, before there is even any evidence of harm - and you have to ask why that is.' Despite her own troubled past, Fran Lyon is convinced she can be a good parent, and is desperate to prove that. From the start, she has been open and honest with social workers about her medical history, but she feels this has been used against her.

Although she describes her childhood as 'difficult', she refuses to elaborate, other than to say that she is close to her mother and younger brother, but has no contact with her father. The catalyst for her severe mental health problems was, she says, the rape she suffered when she was 14. She told police that she was attacked while working as a Saturday volunteer in a charity shop in Northampton, when the shop's founder - a middle-aged man - drove her to an empty warehouse supposedly to pick up supplies for the shop. When Fran reported the rape, he was interviewed by police. Three more women claiming they, too, had been attacked came forward and agreed to testify against him. However, in 2001 the man killed himself before the Crown Prosecution Service could decide whether to proceed. 'After the rape, I became clinically depressed,' says Fran. 'I lost a huge amount of weight and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill myself with an overdose of tablets. It wasn't a cry for help; I wanted to die because of what he had done to me.' She spent the next three years, on and off, in residential psychiatric hospitals in Oxford, Nottingham and London after being diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, in her case characterised by selfharming, instability and suicidal tendencies. For the final 13 months, Fran went to a therapeutic residential clinic, where she attended individual psychotherapy sessions and group analysis before being discharged as an outpatient. By the time she was 18, she appeared to have put her problems behind her. She started to flourish, taking five A-levels at Orpington College in Kent and applying to study neuroscience at Edinburgh University. At the same time, she worked for two mental health charities, Borderline and Personality Plus. It was through that job, two years ago, that she met the man who is the father of Molly. 'Of course, I was worried when I fell pregnant. I wondered how we would cope as a couple, because we weren't living together,' says Fran. 'But once that wore off, I was excited. I would go shopping with my mum to baby departments, buying books and looking at prams.' But a few weeks ago, all normality ended. Social services suddenly became involved when Fran phoned the police after what she describes as a 'disturbing incident' with her partner. Fran's relationship with him ended immediately. 'The case was referred to social services and I was interviewed by two social workers, who said from the beginning that they would have to look at the whole family, not just one person in isolation,' says Fran. 'At that first meeting, they asked about my concerns regarding the baby's father, but then it became clear through their questions that their investigation was centred on me. I have never made a secret of my mental health problems. I felt I had nothing to hide.' Fran was co- operative, she says, because she naively thought children's services would offer her help and support. She was stunned when she received a letter informing her that a child protection case

conference would be held on August 16. 'That's when I became frightened and thought for the first time: "Are they going to take my baby away from me?" 'I couldn't believe how everything had happened so quickly. When you are up against a big system such as social services, it is very easy to feel overrun and overwhelmed.' Realising the seriousness of the situation, Fran instructed a solicitor and contacted her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, who offered her full support. A second psychiatrist, who Fran knew through her charity work, offered a character reference stating: 'I have no doubt that her diligence and capacity, particularly in dealing with complex emotional situations, will stand her in good stead for the rigours of parenthood.' Yet these testimonials, Fran says, were never even read out at the conference after Dr Ward Platt's letter was produced. Northumberland Council insists that two highly experienced doctors - another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the case conference. Neither they, nor anyone else present - including Fran solicitor - made any objection. Feeling stunned and intimidated by what she had heard, she felt unable to speak out. Everything she wanted to say will now be heard - with the help of a new solicitor who specialises in such cases - at appeal. According to MP John Hemming, Fran should win her case; but there is no guarantee that she will. Both he and Fran are particularly concerned that last week social workers contacted the psychiatrist who provided a character reference for Fran. They believe this was done with the intention of 'pressurising' the witness into withdrawing his support, and undermining Fran's appeal. It was seemingly suggested by a social worker to the doctor in question that Fran had given incorrect details about her health to hospital staff: in short, doubt was cast on the reality of an ectopic pregnancy Fran suffered on Christmas Eve two years ago. 'Is it ethical for social workers to go behind my back and speak to my witnesses, discussing my private confidential medical history and suggesting to them that I might have made things up?' says Fran. 'I did have an ectopic pregnancy, and I have the scars to prove that I had abdominal surgery.' Mr Hemming goes further, describing such behaviour as akin to witness nobbling. He also claims it is not uncommon for social workers to pressurise witnesses - a punishable practice in the criminal courts. 'There is a culture in which the end is seen to justify the means, and sometimes the means employed would not be tolerated in any other court of law,' he says. 'Yet if anyone tries to speak out, they are guilty of contempt of court. The whole family court system, because of the secrecy which surrounds it, is vulnerable to bad practice. Social workers are under pressure not to lose cases.' Northumberland Council, while legally prevented from speaking about individual cases, insists there is nothing sinister in their actions. A spokeswoman said it was the court whichwould make the ultimate decision, after hearing legal representation from both sides. 'Safeguarding children is our top priority,' said a spokeswoman. 'We

speak to all sides without bias or pressure. 'We would welcome a review of the family court arrangements, and support transparency, as long as this is in the best interests of the children. 'Safeguarding arrangements have been praised as good following a rigorous inspection by a number of Government departments. It was specifically noted that "good action was taken to enable parents to keep their children safe in the home and the community. Our duty to safeguard children is our only motivation, and we strive to keep children with their families wherever possible, or extended families if that is not possible. 'We do not have numerical targets for adoption; nor have we received any financial rewards in relation to adoption figures.' As for Fran, the final four months of her pregnancy are filled with stress and uncertainty, and the nagging terror that her worst nightmare will become a reality and her baby daughter will be snatched away from her. 'Some days I feel positive,' she says quietly. 'But others I feel totally overwhelmed. All I am asking for is a chance to prove that I will be a good mother.' Sadly, that wish may not be granted her. -----------------------

IMPORTANT! The miserable wretch who was chairman of the so called "Case Conference" that lasted 15 minutes should be dismissed in disgrace. His name is BOB HILL and he should never be allowed near any case conference ever again ! AND THEN? Fran flees the country, see the link below!
http://www.fassit.co.uk/inquiry_team_videos.htm Download Form N434, Notice of change of solicitor, Court Service Forms, Administrative Court. Just to emphasise important guiderules.....

Remember that social workers ARE NOT POLICE and cannot give you orders or forbid you to tell your children that you love them,miss them and are fighting to get them back! It is absolutely essential that you blurt out "I love you and want you back but wicked childstealers have kidnapped you and these horrible thieves are stopping you from coming home !" Say this or words to that effect before anyone can stop you as SS nearly always tell children "mummy does not love you or want you any more" and the children MUST know the truth. Only a court can legally give you orders so do not be bluffed into signing documents or

obeying orders from the SS ! Social Workers have a statutory duty to try and keep families together not split them up ,so they should be asked in court just what attempts they made to keep YOUR family together before taking the baby or the children ! QUOTE THE "HUMAN RIGHTS ACT"section 8:Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 8 guarantees respect for four things: a persons private life, family life, home and correspondence. This guarrantee applies also to the rights of grandparents,siblings,aunts,uncles,and cousins to remain in contact with each other contrary to the forced adoption of a child by adopters whose names and locations are kept secret!

Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the right to freedom of expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to freedom of expression is now expressly guaranteed. However, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 is not absolute. Interferences with the right to freedom of expression may be permitted if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society, that is, satisfy a pressing social need. The legitimate purposes for which freedom of expression can be limited are: * National security, territorial integrity or public safety. * The prevention of disorder or crime. * The protection of health or morals. * The protection of the reputation or rights of others. * The prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence. * For maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

BUT see how they break the law by censoring what a mother can say to a 12 year old child! Most parents have to sign something similar or contact is stopped ! Supervised contact
Supervised contact will take place three times a week. Currently there are two regular sessions on Tuesdays and Fridays, between 3;30 and 4;45pmLukes Social Worker will make arrangements on a weekly basis in regards to the third supervised session until a contact supervisor can be allocated. Contact betweenLuke and his mum wll be supervised by a contact supervisor at all times. The contact sessions will take place at the West Area Duty and Family Support Teams offices. Telephone contact is to take place only under Lukes foster carers supervision.Telephone contact is to only last five minutes and is to be initiated by Luke only. Ms Marques is expected to end the telephone conversation herself in an appropriate way once the five minutes have lapsed. Luke will be transported from school and to the foster placement by a professional appointed by the West Area Duty and Family Support Team. Ms Marques is expected to support Luke while he is staying with his foster carer. She is not to encourage Luke to have any other form of contact with her apart from what has been officially agreed with the Local Authority. The Local Authority is worried that ms Marques has limited insight into how her functioning impacts upon Luke and that there is a risk that Lukes placement will be de-stabilised and Luke experience further emotional harm as a result of this. Ms Marques is strongly advised ; to engage with Luke in a child centered positive way during contact. If she finds this difficult she is encouraged to request support/advice from the contact supervisor. The contact supervisor will from now on make activities available during contact. Ms Marques is advised to engage with these activities and encourage Luke to do so aswell. Ms Marques is encouraged to bring board games with her etc that she and Luke might enjoy playing during contact. Ms Marques should not discuss issues relating to the ongoing court proceedings. If in any case Luke brings up the subject himself she is to encourage him to discuss these issues with his social worker and/or guardian.

Ms Marques should not make reference to herself and her current situation if this will result in Luke feeling worried/guilty about " mum being on her own". Ms Marques is to make reference to Lukes father and paternal side of the family in a positive way at all times. Ms Marques is expected to make reference to all professionals involved with Luke in a positive way.She is to encourage Luke to be open and trusting of these professionals. If Ms Marques feels anxious/unwell she is expected to seek help from her GP and /or her mental health key-worker. Lukes social worker is to be notified of this as soon as that is possible. If in any case contact is to be affected, then Ms Marques is expected to make contact with Lukes social worker immediately. Ms M is expected to keep to all the points made in this written agreement. If Ms Marques fails to keep to any of the expectations as set out by this written agreement; it is made clear that the contact supervisor has been instructed that contact is to be stopped, and Ms Marques will be asked to leave. The Local Authority will also review the contact arrangements and amend them as necessary to promote and ensure Lukes welfare and safety. This is not a legally binding document and all relevant parties are encouraged to seek legal advise if they wish to do so. Any changes to contact will take place only once an updated written agreement has been drafted and signed by all relevant parties.

Article 12 (child's right to participate in decision making) 1. Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either

directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law NEVER,NEVER lose contact with your young children,just read
the paragraphs below !! Send them your phone number buried in the middle of a cd rom (disc),written on a doll,written in invisible ink on a seemingly innocent postcard,or simply whispered in their ears at a suitable moment. Alternatively if your name is Jane for example,register an easy email address (eg) mumjane@aol.com Any child old enough to send an email will then be able to contact you no matter where you are or where they are! If the child has no easy access to a computer ,then a visit for "study purposes' to any public library will also allow free use of one of their computers to send emails free of charge ! If on the other hand your baby or toddler is being snatched insist on breastfeeding a baby as this gives you extra contact.
http: //www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/850.html Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin). Hearing Date: 15 April 2003 Court: Administrative Court. Judge: Munby J. Abstract. "Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights."... Published Date 16/04/2003

This case establishes the right of the mother to breastfeed,and is often ignored both by SS and judges!

Fight for parents,grandparents,aunts,uncles,and cousins all to have contact under the Human Rights Act. (see section "get your children back")

Children of all ages even those as young as 6 or 7 years old for example ,can go to any public phone box and call parents reverse charges if they are quietly told how to do this,explained as follows:Dial 100 from any private phone or public call box and you will be offered 4 options(choices) Choose option4 which asks if you want to speak to an operator.You then ask the operator for a call reversing the charges. The operator will then ask you for your name and the number you are calling.(this must be to a fixed line not a mobile)Your mother or father will then say ok they accept the call and no money is needed from you, the child who is calling! If your children are still with you or at least in contact get them to practice telephoning you reverse charge so that if the worst does happen and they are removed then contact is NEVER lost !! Remember also that if no court order forbids you expressly and specifically from contacting the children there is nothing to stop you seeing them when they come out of school (even nursery school!). Remember that all children "in care" have "personal education plans"that the SS are supposed to share with you.If you know where the school is you know where your child is !Ask the local education authorities(NOT the SS !) for a copy of these plans and ask also to be put on their mailing list so you can continue to follow your children's

progress even after they have been snatched !

What are the timescales for dealing with requests? Requests for information from pupils, or parents, for information that contains, wholly or partly, an educational record must receive a response within 15 school days. Unless a parent simply asks to see the official educational record under the Regulations, schools and authorities are entitled to receive any fee first (see below). Most requests for information are likely to ask for at least some information in the educational record. However, should a subject access request be made just for personal information outside the educational record, a response must be made promptly and at most within 40 calendar days.

YOU MUST BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK IN COURT AND TO SAY ALL YOU WANT TO SAY,CALL ALL THE WITNESSES YOU WANT TO CALL,AND MAKE ALL THE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ! Sack any solicitor or barrister that refuses you these very elementary legal rights OR worse still who advises you to surrender and go along with everything the SS demand.You do not need a lawyer to earn easy money by arranging your surrender !
.
___________________________

-------

Baby P was 17 months old when he was tortured by his mother's boyfriend in spite of 60 visits by social workers and 3 visits to hospital. It all culminated with a visit from a specialist paediatrician who failed to notice that he had a broken back, 2 finger tips sliced

off, several finger nails pulled out, 12 broken ribs and bruises all over his face and body concealed by chocolate. He would still be alive today if someone just once had given him a cursory physical examination but this was not done, probably because as usual Social Services etc. were intimidated by this brutal child abuser living in smelly and sordid surroundings with his sluttish partner and his Rottweiler dogs so they left the horrible family alone to look for easier prey; mostly amongst respectable and responsible households. Most people seem more intent on wreaking vengeance on the murderers of Baby P than preventing the same situation occurring again; may I therefore make a suggestion? Social Services plead shortage of staff and financial resources as excuses for overlooking torture of children (even after 60 visits to Baby P). In other European countries they take children from parents only if they have been severely physically or sexually abused but in Britain we waste most of out valuable resources fighting cruel cases in secret and costly courts to remove children and even new born babies at risk of emotional harm and for similar lesser reasons. The parents of Baby P would never have gone to court to fight for his return if he had been taken earlier as parents that violently physically abuse their children avoid courts like the plague! Physical torture KILLS KILLS KILLS!!! Emotional abuse does NOT Poor school attendance does NOT A cluttered house does NOT Witnessing domestic violence does NOT Hostility to the professionals does NOT A parent with learning problems does NOT Where therefore should the SS priorities lie? Im only asking!! I would have thought myself it was MORE IMPORTANT to concentrate on preventing babies being tortured rather than the

more common rush to remove babies AT BIRTH from mothers whom some highly paid psychobabble merchants have decided may at some future date emotionally harm their babies!Crystal ball gazing? If all the resources of child protection were used to examine thoroughly (looking for visible bruises and burns) say once a month, all those children suspected of having been seriously physically or sexually abused thousands of childrens lives would be saved. At present our resources are wasted fighting in courts to remove happy healthy children from their parents for risk of emotional abuse and similar non life-endangering symptoms. Only parents that truly love their children fight through the gruelling ritual of the secret family courts and against all common sense they nearly always lose. If they dare to protest publicly more than 200 parents a year are jailed (answer to a parliamentary question) for breaking the omert wall of secrecy!! If only mothers facing a life sentence by losing children to forced adoption had the right to a hearing by jury most of the present injustices would disappear. In short, what is needed is simply concentration on eradicating physical child abuse and then introducing hearings by juries who would rarely take children in other cases such as emotional abuse, cluttered dwellings, poor school attendance etc. 'Evil destruction' of a happy family. A system involving social workers, police and courts took a child away from loving parents for no apparent reason, writes Christopher Booker.
Daily Telegraph, 18 Jul 2009
Two weeks ago I reported as shocking a story as this column has ever covered. It described how a loving family was torn apart when the parents were arrested by police on what turned out to be wholly spurious charges, so that their three children could be taken into care by social workers. As reported on another page, it now seems this awful episode has come to a happy ending. However a new case has lately been surfacing, if anything even more shocking. This also involved the arrest of two parents and the abduction of their child by social workers, in a story so bizarre that, at last week's Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown was asked about it by the family's MP, Charles Hendry, who has long been concerned with the case because the mother is a vice-chairman of his local Conservative Association. The family's horrified GP says that, in 43 years of medical practice, he has never "encountered a case of such appalling injustice". I first planned to describe this case in April, but was pre-empted by the draconian reporting restrictions

on family cases, which, for reasons which will become tragically clear, have now been partly lifted. The story began in April 2007 when "Mr Smith", as I must call him, had a visit from the RSPCA over the dog-breeding business he ran from the family home. He had docked the tails of five new-born puppies a procedure that had become illegal two days beforehand. Unaware of this, he promised in future to obey the new law. Three days later, however, at nine o'clock in the morning, two RSPCA officials returned, accompanied in cars and riot vans by 18 policemen, who had apparently been tipped off, quite wrongly, that Mr Smith had guns in the house. Armed with pepper spray, they ransacked the house, looking for the nonexistent guns. The dogs, released from their kennels, also rampaged through the house. When Mr Smith and his wife, who was three months pregnant, volubly protested at what was happening, they were forcibly arrested in front of their screaming five-year-old daughter "Jenny" and taken away. Two hours later, with the house in a shambles the dogs having strewn the rabbit entrails meant for their dinner across the floor social workers arrived to remove the crying child. Held for hours in a police cell, Mrs Smith had a miscarriage. When she was finally set free, she returned home that evening to find her daughter gone. It was the beginning of a barely comprehensible nightmare. Her husband was charged with various offences connected with the dogs, including the tail-docking, but was eventually given a conditional discharge by a judge who accepted that he was "an animal lover" who had not been cruel to his dogs. Far more serious, however, was that the social workers seemed determined to hang onto the child, now in foster care, on the sole grounds that they had found the house dirty and in a mess (the "animal entrails" played a large part in their evidence). This was despite the testimony of a woman Pc (who had visited the house a month earlier on a different matter) that she found it "clean and tidy". Two hundred horrified neighbours, who knew the couple as doting parents of a happy, well-cared-for child, were about to stage a protest demonstration when they were stopped by the police, on the social workers' instructions that this might identify the child. For more than two years the couple have been fighting through more than 100 hearings in the courts to win their daughter back. From a mass of evidence, including psychiatric reports and tape recordings made at meetings with her parents (only allowed in the presence of social workers), it is clear she has been desperate to return home. It is equally clear that considerable pressure has been brought on the child to turn her against her parents, One particularly bizarre psychiatric report was compiled after only an hour-long interview with the little girl. When she said she had once choked on a lollipop, this was interpreted as signifying that she could possibly have "been forced to have oral sex with her father". After Mrs Smith alone had been subjected to four different psychiatric investigations, which came up with mixed findings, she refused to submit to a fifth, and this apparently weighed heavily with the judge who last December ordered that "Jenny" should be put out to adoption. In the Appeal Court 11 days ago, Mr Justice Bodey ruled that, because the mother had refused that fifth test, indicating that the parents put their own "emotional wellbeing" in front of that of their child, the adoption order must stand. When this judgment was reported, an independent social worker, who had earlier been an expert witness in the case, wrote to Mr and Mrs Smith to say he was "horrified" to learn that Jenny was "not back in their care", having assumed for over a year that "she must have been

returned home". Their equally horrified GP, saying that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice", wrote "the destruction of this once happy family is in my opinion evil". So shocked was their MP, Mr Hendry ,that he last Wednesday took the highly unusual course of raising the case with the Prime Minister at question time. Numerous others who know the family well have expressed similar dismay. One neighbour, herself a former social worker, whose own daughter often played with "Jenny", said: "I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this. It is disgusting." What is clear in this case, as in so many others, is that a system involving social workers, police and courts in what is an obviously very close alliance should yet again have left a happy, loving family destroyed for no very obvious reason, Almost equally alarming is the way that system manages to shield itself from the world, through reporting restrictions which it claims are designed to protect the children but which too often end up by protecting only the system itself. -------CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL JUDGMENT --------------------

Telegraph View: Child abuse won't be overcome until we define what it is Ed Balls will fail unless he gives guidance on what social workers should be doing. 10 Jan 2009
The horrific accounts of errors and incompetence by social services officials that we publish today will generate outrage and despair: outrage that officials could leave children with parents they know to be violent, criminal and addicted to drugs; and despair that despite the hundreds of inquiries, the hundreds of inspections, despite the repeated promises from the Government that things are getting better, nothing changes. The same mistakes are consistently repeated, with fatal consequences for children. The persistent failure of social workers to protect children who are in very serious danger is made even more outrageous by the profession's propensity to remove children from parents who are manifestly no danger at all to them. Of the 35,000 children who are taken into care every year on the recommendation of social workers, a large proportion are removed on grounds of "emotional abuse" a category so broad and ill- defined that it can include both praising your children too much and not praising them enough, or feeding them too many vegetables or too little fresh fruit. It appears that social workers, aware of their inability to intervene in cases

where children really are at risk, compensate for that failure by intervening in families where they are obviously safe. There is no doubt that those two bad practices are connected. The resources of social work departments are, as directors of those departments frequently point out, strictly limited. Time spent investigating parents who do not threaten or endanger the children in their care is time not spent investigating, visiting or intervening in the cases where there is a threat. If genuinely at- risk children are to be protected, resources have to be targeted at cases where parents pose a clear and present danger. It is, in a literal sense, true that social workers do not know what they are doing. That is not their fault. Government "advice" on what they should do is, quite correctly, centred on ensuring that children are protected from "significant harm". But, in all the many hundreds of pages that both Labour and Conservative governments have issued on when social workers should intervene, the notion of "significant harm" has never been defined in a meaningful and precise way. The result is that it is left to officials to interpret the term as they see fit. And that means "significant harm" has as many interpretations as there are social workers: one can conclude that a child whose parents are violent drug-addicts is not at risk of "significant harm", while another can claim that a parent who "plays too often and too long" with her is so dangerous that the child should be taken into care. The first step the Government needs to take in order to stop this malpractice is properly to define the notion of "significant harm". That will not prevent fatal misjudgments being made. But it will make those misjudgments less likely. It will save the lives of many children, and also prevent forcible removal from parents who love them and protect them, and who would provide them with a far better start in life than the dismal future that awaits those who are taken into state care. It will also make it possible for the inquiries and inspections that take place after a child dies to say something useful, instead of merely reporting (as they do at present) that "no one was to blame". So long as inspectors do not work with a clear and fixed notion of "significant harm", they are in exactly the same position as social workers: they cannot identify the kinds of practice that they ought to prevent. Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary, has insisted that he will take steps to end social services' persistent failure to protect seriously at-risk children. He will fail unless he gives clear guidance on what social workers should be doing and he can only do that by defining the notion of "significant harm." We await

his proposals. The following statistics REFERRING TO NEWBORN BABIES REMOVED FROM THEIR MOTHERS AT BIRTH were researched by John Hemming M.P.
Year 2004 2005 2006 Into care 580 600 670 Returned to parents 90 100 70 Adoption 360 320 140

In each case fewer than 1 in 5 of newborn babies return to their mothers.

I have expressed it as the situation where if mother stays then you have to toss a coin twice and get heads both times to keep your baby. The chances are, in fact, worse than that

THIS IS THE SITUATION(As at January 2009)

1: There really are SECRET COURTS in the UK. 215 MPs of all parties signed the "early day motion" below. EDM 869 WORKING OF THE CHILDREN ACT 2004 26.10.2005 Pickles, Eric
That this House urges the Government to remove the veil of secrecy from the workings of the Children Act 2004; considers that the closed door policy of the family courts breeds suspicion and a culture of secrecy which does nothing to instil confidence in those using them, which affects not just the courts but the social services departments of local authorities; and believes that it is possible to preserve the anonymity of children involved in the proceedings without the cumbersome rules which obstruct parents from receiving advice and support, which in particular works to the disadvantage of parents with special learning difficulty.

2: These courts take children from loving parents who have committed no crime. There are of course parents who brutalise and even torture or kill their children but such parents rarely go to court to recover their children; they stay as far away from courts as they possibly can! Common sense surely tells us that parents who care for their children enough to keep fighting for them in numerous very painful court actions ought to stand a good chance of winning them back. The sad fact is however that although judges often

severely criticise social services in court they nearly always end up cautiously finding for the local authority and against the emotionally distraught parents. Parents are regularly condemned by "establishment judges" for neglecting their children, abusing them physically (or more often emotionally) not "beyond reasonable doubt" but "on the balance of probabilities"! Lord Denning defined this in Miller versus Ministry of Pensions as "more probable than not"Statistically,this means that the judge has at least a 51% chance of being right and probably at best 70% chance of being right so at least 30% of all forced adoptions were wrong and families split up on mere "hearsay" (statements by social workers and other persons, not in court and who could not be questioned). Wicked deeds violating parent's basic human rights! 3: These parents lose their children for ever to adoption by strangers. The children adopted are refused access to records of their birth parents or siblings at least until they are 18, and usually for the rest of their lives. 4: Parents are GAGGED and regularly sent to prison in secret proceedings if they reveal what went on in court. Harriet Harman (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Hansard
source My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which she has put to me in a written question, so I know what the answer is. Last year something like 200 people were sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy. The idea that people are sent to prison without any reports of the proceedings makes even more important the work that we are undertaking with the family courts.

5: Establishment judges make decisions to take thousands of babies for risk of possible future emotional abuse.

Extract from The Times, Aug 23 2007:

Emotional abuse has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse, compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and neglect - which replaced the old notion of grave concern in 1989 - have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under

emotional neglect. 6: No jury would take babies from mothers because some expert made predictions of their future behaviour.

(Extract from The Sunday Times, Nov 18th 2007):A review

is still going on of 700 cases in which bogus forensic scientist Gene Morrison gave evidence. Morrison, 48, from Manchester who was sentenced to five years for fraud in February, admitted he pretended to be an expert witness and bought his qualifications on the internet because it seemed easier than getting real ones. For many of the genuinely qualified experts, legal work is a lucrative sideline, and if they are perceived to be able to tailor their evidence convincingly, the commissions keep flowing in. John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning about the misuse of medical evidence, says fees for a basic written opinion, based on reading through existing files, start at 4,000. If the expert concludes there is a case to answer, they attract court attendance fees as well. I have known experts get as much as 28,000 for one report, said Hemming, who is lobbying for experts to be required to produce the scientific publications on which their opinion is based: Unless we start using evidencebased evidence in court, we will get nowhere. 7: Criminals facing 6+ months in prison can demand a jury; parents losing their children for life cannot. 8: Carefully selected pregnant mothers with vulnerable backgrounds but often with no criminal records or disabilities are told their babies will be taken at birth! Equally carefully selected are the "expert" psychiatists and psychologists who regularly "work" with the family courts and are eager to practice their latest "psychobabble theories". They are therefore only too willing to earn their generous fees and diagnose nearly every unfortunate mother presented to them by social services with a"borderline personality disorder" or to report that she "represents a risk of emotional abuse" to her children. Sometimes they will even diagnose a really hostile mother as "unfit" to instruct a solicitor! "The Official Solicitor" is then appointed for her! He will inevitably agree with everything the local authority demands and will refuse to let the aggrieved mother say a word! The result in nearly all these cases is that babies and quite often all the other children from the same families are taken into care for eventual adoption by strangers.

9: Local authorities are rewarded by central government for reaching "adoption targets" hence adoption is prioritised. 10: Fosterers get up to 400/week/ child,special schools up to 7000/week/child,adoption agencies,experts lawyers all cash in lavishly! SO: What to do? - Stop the secrecy and the gagging of parents forced to remain anonymous and unable to complain under their own names. - Stop adoptions of children for emotional abuse or for "risk", and open adoption records to children already adopted. - Stop judges deciding cases of long term fostering or adoption, and give juries the final decision. Better still abolish forced adoption altogether! - Stop excessive rewards for those who live off the misery caused by this wicked system! This would be a very very good start!

Social workers are still too keen to split up families, says Christopher Booker. Daily Telegraph 4 July 2009
One of the most disturbing features of life in modern Britain has been the extraordinary powers given to social workers to seize children from their parents, too often when those powers are abused supported by the police and family courts. What makes this still more alarming is the legal bar on reporting these episodes, supposedly to protect the children, which again too often works to protect the social workers themselves at the expense of the children. Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column. Until six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.

The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children's safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest. He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services. Mrs Jones was allowed to return to an empty home that evening. Mr Jones was permitted to attend court two days later, to hear the magistrates grant an interim order for the children to remain in the care of social services. Because he was "sectioned", he was not allowed to speak. The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained. On May 28, Mr Jones appeared before a mental health tribunal which, after hearing all the facts relating to his case, gave him a complete discharge. He returned home to his wife and immediately contacted his MP, a local MEP, lawyers and others he thought might be able to help, one of whom set in train the investigation by Lord Monckton that led to this story appearing here. Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday. The voluminous dossier setting out this extraordinary sequence of events not only includes lengthy statements from Mr and Mrs Jones but copies of detailed statements by the social worker and policewoman most closely involved in the case (along with a good deal more circumstantial evidence). The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones's "delusional belief system" that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections. The only harm done to the children is their very evident unhappiness at being separated from their parents. It must be hoped that the court this week recognises how grotesquely this tragic case has been blown out of all proportion, and rules that a loving family should immediately be reunited.

Wronged parents need the oxygen of publicity We hear the tragic details of children left in danger. But we must not silence the families of those removed unjustly
by Camilla Cavendish. The Times March 6, 2009 "They're ripping lives apart and no one knows, says one kind colleague who has rashly offered to return some of the phone calls I get from people trying to get their children back from social services, or to stop them being taken away. She is staggered by the volume of misery, powerlessness and desperation that

this issue provokes almost every day. And that it is almost invisible outside. We all see the tragedies that go the other way. Baby P is imprinted on our minds. When the Audit Commission warned yesterday that thousands of children may be at risk of neglect and abuse in parts of the country because of shambolic child protection systems, we all have vivid images of the horror that can result if social workers do not intervene. Yet we have almost no idea of what happens when the same shambolic systems intervene in the wrong lives. When children die, they have no privacy left, so the media tell their story. But if children are taken from loving families and placed with strangers, their privacy makes their views the property of the State, to be translated only by the State. I know one child, now back with his mother, who was told by social workers that she didn't want him any more because she had a new baby. I have heard others say, on reaching 18, that they had assumed they were in care because they were evil. Many suffer the cruel ratchet of family contact visits being relentlessly reduced from maybe a few hours to an hour a week, to an hour a fortnight - awkward meetings in municipal rooms. This is done to wean children from their parents, for ostensibly good reasons but it also helps the State to claim that the family bond is weak and that the child would be happier with strangers. Of these things done in our name, we know almost nothing. When we do find out, it is often too late. On Tuesday I went to the Court of Appeal to observe a strange case in which two teenage boys are protesting that the State is punishing them by keeping them in care. The council apparently became concerned that the boys had refused to see their mother after she left the family home. A judge decided that their father was poisoning the boys' minds, encouraged by a psychiatrist who, it was said in court, had exceeded her remit. They were taken into care. The boys have since run away from two foster homes, repeatedly stating that they want to live with dad, not mum. The system has deprived them of both. The mute expression of disbelief and fury on the face of the older son on Tuesday, when the judges dismissed the appeal, was eloquent. By that stage, my feelings mirrored his. But it was hard to be sure. This was the first time any of the evidence had been made public, because only now has it gone to appeal. We need proper regulation of the care system. The Audit Commission report demonstrates that regulators are too weak to improve performance in children's services. We need a regulator who can spot problems early and make social workers accountable.

A SOCIAL WORKER'S POEM

I am a social worker, I'm really very nice.

I help you loving mothers, And give you good advice! Your partner has departed Your income is too low. I'm really very sorry, All your kids will have to go! Your partner is abusive? He beats you black and blue? We'll soon be there to help you, And take your children too! You have a learning problem, You're really not too clever We'll get your kids adopted When can you see them?? NEVER!! Your son is hyperactive? You need a brief respite; We'll soon take ALL your children Give up the hopeless fight! Your child was taken into care, So many years ago

If now you have a baby That too will have to go! Foster parents love your kids To get some more they seek, For each one brings a tidy sum 400 per week!! Children's homes are run by us, Where paedophiles abound Each time we cover up abuse "The gutter press" come round "They" said adoptions worked the best We soon proved that they would Fathers shout and mothers cry Their kids are gone for good! What happens in our special courts? Our experts they will say "You're a danger to your children, So we'll take them all away!" Your children may be healthy, Happy and well fed

But one day you might hurt them That's what our experts said The judges know that we are right, With us they will agree They dare not risk another course You have no chance you see! Our special courts are secret, So don't you breathe a word Of what goes on inside those walls No matter how absurd! We'll get your kids adopted, And don't you dare complain! Or you'll end up in prison And I won't say that again! We have adoption targets, They must be met you see, Failure means a reprimand, So spare a thought for me!!! by IAN JOSEPHS (a very social worker!) _________________________

USEFUL INFORMATION

At last a BREAKTHROUGH!! Read the following article in the "LAW GAZETTE". You can now hit those "SS" people through their pockets! The more times you go to court the harder they will find it to pay for it all! Fight like a tiger and never give up and like countless other mothers (some of whom I have advised) You can WIN and get your children back! Do not be fooled into cooperating with the "SS" when you are given their promises or those of your legal aid lawyers that if you go along with the "SS" everything will be alright! It WON'T!! All they want from assessments and psycho charlatans is more evidence to win their case so do not give it to them! The "SS" are not police who must be obeyed but they ARE your ENEMIES as long as their stated intention is to take your children into care or for adoption. When your enemy runs out of ammunition you should never send them a fresh case of bullets for them to fire at you!! Only agree to assessments and psychos if ordered to do so by a judge; otherwise refuse unless your children are returned to live with you first! Any other assessment or psychiatric examination cannot be normal or natural. Lastly never get "conned" into putting your kids into voluntary care because more often than not despite what the law gazette says you may never see them again IF YOU ARE IN THAT SITUATION USE THE LAST PARA OF THE GAZETTE AS PROOF THAT THEY MUST BE RETURNED TO YOU WHEN YOU ASK! And the best of luck to you! Care applications fall sparks safety fears

Law Society Gazette, 21 August 2008 Just 1,611 applications were made by

councils in England and Wales between the beginning of April and the end of July, according to figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass). This compares with 2,160 in the same period last year and 2,284 between April and July 2006. Since May, councils have been obliged to foot the bill for child care proceedings as part of a government drive to make the courts entirely selffunding through fees. The move has resulted in a 2,500% hike in costs, with child care proceedings rising from 150 to 4,825. Anthony Douglas, chief executive of Cafcass, told the Gazette that Section 20 agreements where children are placed with grandparents or other relatives went up by several hundred in the same period.

Care applications have dropped significantly I am concerned about the drop because its too large to be complacent about, he said.
Douglas added that the use of Section 20 agreements voluntary arrangements between parents and local authorities that do not come under court scrutiny and can be rescinded by the parent at any time should be kept under review.

_______________________ As a social worker for 15 years i have seen children taken into care unnecessarily,been ordered to lie in court,had the Dept.'s solicitor reconstruct my witness statement to put parent in a bad light,made to exagerate a parents problems or blow up a minor incident.I eventually retired on ill health ian hughes, bridgend, britain QUESTION THEM !!
Here are 4 important questions that SHOULD be answered

by social services or by family court judges but which have so far been systematically ignored!

1: It must surely be the right of parents and anyone else in a democratic country wishing to complain against injustice to go to the media with details of everything that happened to them in the family court Most judges in family courts refuse leave to appeal and solicitors always back them up so the idea of appealing when leave has been denied is nearly always a "non starter". Parents are at present denied their democratic right to (like rape victims) shed anonymity and then go to the media under their own names to get public and political support followed by possible reform! How can this be justice?

2: Harriet Harman,(minister of state, Department of constitutional affairs )said in Parliament "Last year something like 200 people were sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy." Surely those who still deny these facts cannot believe she was lying to Parliament! How can imprisonment with no public process be justice? 3: Extract from The Times, Aug 23 2007: Emotional abuse has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse, compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. How can taking newborn babies for "risk of emotional abuse" and subsequent adoption by strangers possibly be justified when the effect is to punish parents and

abuse their babies not for anything they have done but for something that some hired prophet thinks they might perhaps do in the future. How can this be justice?
4: Any burglar facing a prison sentence of 6 months or more can demand a hearing before a jury so how can it be right or just that parents who risk losing their children for life to "forced adoption" are denied this option. Juries consider complicated medical evidence in cases such as murder, and compensation for injuries, also complicated tax laws in cases of fraud, and insider dealing. The simple decision whether a mother accused of risk of emotional abuse should keep her newborn baby or not would I think we must all agree be more likely to favour the mother if considered by a jury but records show that such cases nearly always favour the social services if decided by a judge. That is probably why juries are banned from the family courts but allowed to decide libel cases in other civil courts! To take a newborn baby from its mother and give it away for adoption by strangers is a far far worse punishment for her than any jail sentence as it condemns the mother to a life sentence and the baby to probable death later in life if it should require a kidney or bone marrow transplant or other medical attention in which a birth family member was needed but could not be located! How can this be justice?

The 4 obvious reforms would be:

1: Remove the gag and forced anonymity from parents involved in family court proceedings.

2: Forbid judges in the family courts to imprison any parent without a public hearing.

3: Abolish "risk" as a reason to remove children from a sane parent unless in addition to risk it can be clearly shown and proved that such children have already suffered significant

physical harm.

4: Any parents facing the possibility that their children could be removed for long term fostering or adoption without parental consent should have the right to demand that the final decision be made by a jury not a judge.Better still abolish forced adoption altogether!

Re K D [1998] 1 AC p.812 letter B Lord Templeman stated; The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the childs moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature.' ------------------Boy, 5, forced into adoption with gay couple pleads: 'We want to stay with our gran and grandad'
by Jonathan Brocklebank and Michael Seamark Daily Mail, 29th Jan 2009 The mother of two children who are being adopted by gay men even though their grandparents want to care for them wept yesterday as she told of her final meeting with her son and daughter. I told them, Listen, Mummy is not going to see you for a while, she said. Her son replied: But Mummy, I want to come and stay with you and Granny and Grandad. The row over the future of the five-year -old boy and four-year-old girl

intensified yesterday after the Daily Mail revealed details of the heartbreaking case. Their grandparents spent two years fighting for the right to care for the children, whose 26-year-old mother is a recovering heroin addict. She desperately wanted her parents to look after them. But social workers said their ages he is 59 and she is 46 and their health he has angina and she is diabetic ruled them out. The mother told the Mail that she had been ordered to say her goodbyes to the children last August during a trip to Edinburgh Zoo. They told me not to cry and be strong so as not to upset the children, she said. How can you tell a mother that when shes never going to see her children again? She voiced her anger at the decision to allow her son and daughter to be fostered by a homosexual couple. I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad. They cant be telling me that, within a 60-mile radius, the only people they could find to look after my children were two men. Ive got nothing against gay people. I ve got gay friends, but children need a mum and a dad, not a dad and another dad. Im ashamed of what Ive done, especially what Ive put mum and dad through because they have been brilliant every step of the way. My children deserve so much love and my mum and dad were prepared to give them it, but social work snatched them away. They are a mum and dad in a million and I know they would have brought my children up brilliantly. The mother also revealed that social workers have asked her to meet the gay couple under their supervision. But she will not see her children or be allowed to know where they are going to be living. The Mail revealed yesterday how the grandparents had fought a relentless battle for the right to look after the youngsters after deciding

their daughter was unfit to do so. But they were opposed every step of the way by Edinburghs social work department, which believed they should go to an adoptive family. When the grandparents eventually caved in to what they describe as bully tactics by the social workers, the department arranged for the children to be adopted by a gay couple in the Edinburgh area. They had already decided that, whatever the outcome of the battle, the children should not see their mother owing to her unstable lifestyle and history of offences. graphic Recalling her final, 90-minute meeting with her children, the mother said: I was told that this would be the last time. They asked me to pick a place to take them and I decided on the zoo. The social worker was with me and kept saying to me I would have to tell them I was not going to see them any more and that I had to stay strong for their sakes. At one point she said that my son was the spitting image of my mum and my daughter looked like her grandad. What kind of thing is that to say at a moment like that, when Im about to tell them I wont see them again? I told them that I loved them and I would write them lots of letters and cards and that they would be going to a new house soon. I got really upset and had to keep turning away so that they didnt see me crying. The social worker said, Just leave it there. Ten minutes later, that was it. But the mother still had to help put the children in the social workers car. My son grabbed me tightly on the leg and and would not let me go. It was just absolutely devastating. She said that the heartrending last meeting had happened while her parents were still fighting for full parental rights for the brother and sister, who have been staying with foster parents for the last two years pending a decision on their future. Her parents last meeting with the children came two months later in October. By then, under mounting pressure from the social work

department and concerned about months or years of further disruption to their lives, they had taken the agonising decision to withdraw from the legal fight. The grandfather, a farm worker, and his wife say the social work department are effectively blackmailing them by telling them they will not see the children again unless they give the new adoptive arrangements their blessing. Although the family desperately want to reverse the adoption procedure they do not now know how they can. Their previous solicitor has moved to a new job and would be unable to represent them in her current role. They would also need to reapply for legal aid before taking any action and time is running out. The children have already had several meetings with the men who are soon to become their full-time fathers. They are understood to be seeing them for a few hours daily and have recently visited their home. The men are giving them a bedroom each and the girls has been decked out with a princess bedspread. The children have also been shown the wellington boots waiting for them at the back door when they want to play outside. Under the adoption procedure, the children will see more and more of the gay couple, spending occasional nights in their home, until they move in permanently. The social work department will remain in contact with the new parents for the first year of adoption then, providing there are no serious problems, contact will cease. Thereafter the only official channel the childrens natural family will have for making contact with them would be through an adoption agency. The mother said: The social worker told me the kids are getting on really well with them. My daughter had apparently said to the social worker, Come up and see my princess bed. I just feel totally devastated. Now they want me to meet the men. Social work phoned me to ask how I was feeling now about them being adopted by a gay couple and if I had calmed down. They told me that out of the couples they had on their books they were

the ones who were able to cater for their needs best. I find that very hard to believe. Ill have to say that to them when I meet them because its how I feel, but I dont want the whole thing to become an argument. I will have lots of questions to ask them. Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, convener for education, children and families at Edinburgh City Council, said: I have been assured that the professional view is that the adoptive couple will provide a safe, secure and loving environment for these children. These are always very complex cases but I think it is important to say that the grandparents have been fully involved in discussions about this case over a period of time.

---------------------Social services Stasi should hang their heads in shame

by Amanda Platell Daily Mail 29th Jan 2009 Should proof ever be needed of the scandalous social engineering now so casually carried out by our state, it comes in the case of the loving grandparents of two small children who desperately sought to adopt them but saw them instead placed with a gay couple. The decision was made to refuse the grandparents the right to raise their own blood relatives and instead give them away to two gay men in accordance with who can best meet their needs, according to the social services jargon. But how can two strangers gay or straight best meet the needs of two children abandoned by a drug- addict mother for whom the only constants in their short, difficult lives have been their loving grandparents? We dont even know what the reasoning behind this perverse decision

was, because it was taken in secret, behind the closed doors of a childrens court. Those who took part will not be held accountable and we are unable even to identify their victims. This decision is one of particular cruelty. The decision itself is bad enough, but the grandparents description of how they were treated give us a chilling insight into the Stasi-like approach of modern social services. They were told that if they so much as objected to the adoption of the children by the gay couple then they would never be allowed to see the children again. You can either accept it, the grandparents were told by social workers, and theres a chance youll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again. The Stalinist secret police couldnt have put it better. Further, the grandparents are not allowed even to know where the children will live, what the gay couples circumstances are and what kind of a home they will provide for the children. Equally astonishingly, it emerges the youngsters were not given to a gay couple for want of other alternatives: indeed there were several other heterosexual couples desperate and deemed suitable to adopt the children. But the social workers and the courts opted for the gay men. As the grandfather in this case says: The mother is the cornerstone of any family and the most important person for a young child. Thats hard to argue with. His little granddaughter will no doubt have lots of female role models, gay- speak for women friends, but its not the same. A little girl already wary of men, no doubt because in her young life shes witnessed her addict mother being ritually abused by them, will have to turn to one of them one day, when she gets her periods, when she needs her first bra. Its hard enough asking your own mother such things, let alone a gay man. The only reason given for denying the grandparents the right to adopt their own daughters children is worries about their age and their health. The 59-year-old grandfather is a farm worker and has angina, his wife, just 46, is being treated for diabetes.

Plenty of people lead normal lives with diabetes and angina. And how outrageous to say a woman of 46 is too old to be a mother particularly when it emerges she is still bringing up children of her own. Whod have dared to suggest that Cherie Blair was too old or to suggest it to the countless women who have healthy children in their forties? When did the State decide to endorse such monstrously cruel social engineering? When did it decide to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence that childrens lives are best when they are raised by a mother and father living together preferably married? It appears that social services, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe that all relationships are equal when it comes to raising children. Indeed, in this case they seem to have decided that a gay relationship is preferable to a couple of opposite sex. This is simply not true. They are not equal when it comes to the things children need most commitment and stability. Yet is is regarded as heretical even to state the facts: which are that marriages last longer than cohabiting heterosexual relationships and they both last longer than gay relationships. Those are the cold, bare truths. It is too soon to know the statistics on same-sex marriages as there has not been enough time to assess the trends and many same sex couples enjoy enduring and truly fulfilling relationships. But if commitment and stability matter most to childrens happiness and success, the least suitable place for them to be raised is by a gay couple. Thats not homophobia, thats not bigotry, thats a fact unpalatable as it might be to the Left consensus. When you read of such shocking decisions, you can only wonder how any sane judge could put two small children with two men. Are they trying to meet some target they have been set for placing children for adoption with gay couples? Who knows, because shamefully all of this process is conducted in secret. It also reflects how out of touch the state and the law is now, not just with the traditional family, but with the role of grandparents. Again and

again we hear stories of grandparents cut out of their grandchildrens lives after divorce or death and having no recourse to the law. Grandparents have been written out of the modern liberal family narrative at a time, in reality, when they have never been more needed or more central to the revival of the extended family. They help out with child care, work around the house, ferry children to after-school classes and even assist with finances. But against all the evidence social services choose to take two small children away from their natural family and give them up for adoption to a gay couple. It beggars belief and seems guaranteed to do only one thing: to give those innocent children the poorest possible start to their lives, the slimmest chance of happiness and the greatest likelihood of anger, bewilderment and failure. Those who made this decision should hang their heads in shame.

------------------My comments on the recent House of Lords debate concerning identification of sperm or egg donors are as follows: All the noble Lords and Ladies seem preoccupied with children conceived by sperm donors or egg donors and the rare possibility of siblings adopted by different families meeting by chance at a later date and marrying! They completely ignore the most flagrant injustices of all ,those thousands of babies and young children forcibly adopted against the will of parents who love them and want to keep them.These babies and young children are then issued with new fake birth certificates by a conniving and deceitful State! This is how they "work" it! "UK Certificates " offers a secure online ordering service for official General Register Office issued adoption certificates for England & Wales.

What Information will I receive? An adoption certificate is a replacement birth certificate but in an adopted person's new name. It is used by an adopted person for all legal and purposes in place of their original birth certificate. The main difference between the two documents is the addition of court particulars on an adoption certificate. We will provide an officially certified full version of an original adoption certificate for any event in England & Wales between 1927-present. We can provide a short version if you prefer, which contains no reference to the fact of adoption. Your "fake birth certificate" is ready! And now for the "experts"!

So called "experts" in the secret family courts make crystal ball type predictions of "risk of future emotional harm" or "risk of neglect". Few families can defend themselves against future "predictions" so compliant family court judges almost inevitably "go along" with social service requests that the children be placed for adoption with strangers!Even when very rarely, parents are cleared by the courts, once the adoptions have been rushed through they are forbidden to know where their children are or to have any contact with them whether the children want it or not! A parliamentary question revealed that more than 200 parents a year are secretly jailed for daring to reveal details of those who accused them in court or for contacting their own offspring contrary to a court order. Parents are often forbidden from knowing whether their offspring are alive or dead, and if the latter they usually find out a very long time after the deaths occured. Children are all too often split up and adopted by different families. This must be contrary to their human rights as all too often they are forbidden to contact their siblings and may not even know of their existence. If many years later a child needs a replacement kidney or bone marrow transplant the birth family records are rarely revealed and very often declared "lost". So the unfortunate child whose needs are supposed to be "paramount" is in fact callously left to die for want of a family donor!

'You can't see your son - but can he have one of your organs?' How social workers left one man with a terrible moral dilemma
By Alison Smith Squire Daily Mail, 3rd November 2008 The letter from Hampshire Social Services was as brief as it was bewildering. Please ring me on the above number, it said. I have some information that might be of interest to you. This was quite an understatement, as Michael Shergold soon found. A quietly spoken father of three, he finds that his life rarely gets more exciting than his weekly game of golf. But when he called the social workers as requested, he was confronted with a series of astonishing facts. They said he was the father of another child - a five-year-old son from a previous, short-lived relationship. A former girlfriend, unable to cope with the demands of motherhood, had handed the boy over to foster parents.

Bewildered: Michael and Alex Shergold with his sons Peter and David last week. 'Our family seems incomplete', says Michael A meeting with this new-found son was out of the question, he was told, let alone any sort of relationship. He was also informed that the boy was to be formally adopted and that the council was ringing merely to let him know. His shock slowly turned to anger and then determination. Hurt to have been kept in the dark for so many years, Michael still believed he was responsible for the child - whom we shall call Andrew - and launched a legal fight to secure custody. But there were extraordinary surprises in store for Michael and his wife, Alex. Hampshire Social Services wanted more than just his acquiescence.

Andrew, it emerged, had been diagnosed with a severe problem in one of his organs. For legal reasons, it is not possible to be more specific. But the boy stands little chance of living beyond his teenage years without a transplant - from a blood relative if at all possible. The most suitable blood relative, it was explained by social workers, was Michael himself. In a disturbing saga, this was perhaps the most unpleasant twist of all. It brought him to a damning conclusion - that Hampshire Social Services had made him aware of Andrews existence only to provide the child with a body part. Michael tried to adopt his son but last year he lost the battle and was refused even occasional visiting rights, which were deemed too upsetting for the boy. Like almost all cases that go through the family court system, the details were not made public. Michael now has to decide whether to risk his own life with a dangerous operation for a son who, as things stand, he will never see. Words cannot express the anger and bewilderment I feel, says Michael. I simply cannot believe how Social Services can be so cruel. To track me down, tell me I have a son I knew nothing about, throw my life into chaos and then tell me I will never be able to see him is nothing short of disgraceful. The Mail on Sunday asked Hampshire County Council two months ago about its handling of the case. It responded by obtaining a legal injunction to prevent us printing Michaels story, claiming that to do so might damage his sons chances of settling down.

Determined that Michael should get the chance to speak, The Mail on Sunday has pursued a lengthy legal fight to lift the injunction, and last week we succeeded. Today, in this exclusive interview, Michael is able to talk about his ordeal for the first time. To know my son has been adopted against my consent by strangers rather than his blood family, where he would have had a loving home, has been bad enough, he says. But to know that, if I dont donate an organ, my son might not live long enough to know me has put me in the worst situation of all. Im in a dilemma about what to do. I feel I am being asked to make a decision in a vacuum. If I could just see my son and maintain some sort of contact, I would have absolutely no hesitation about doing it. Michael, 55, was speaking at his spacious three-bedroom house in Southampton, the city where he was born and where he has spent his whole life. Sitting by his side is Alex. Originally from Los Angeles, she moved to Britain in 2002, the same year the couple married, and she became a pastor with a Pentecostal church in Portsmouth. This is not the first time that Michael, who works as a school caretaker, has suffered domestic drama. His 16-year marriage ended in 1996 when he discovered that his first wife had been unfaithful. He was given custody of the children - Peter, now 17, David, 20, and Susanna, 30 - and brought them up singlehandedly. As Alex serves home-made carrot cake and their cuckoo clock announces the time, the Shergolds seem every inch a loving family. Their attitude to their predicament is one of quiet anger and grief rather than unfettered fury. We have a wonderful, close-knit family, says Michael. Peter and David, who still live at home, flit in and out as the couple talk. Susanna lives close by. It is a particular irony that Michael has been employed by Hampshire County Council for the past 35 years, overseeing the repairs, cleaning and maintenance of a local primary school. As it happens, the job requires him to undergo criminal record checks every year and neither he nor Alex, who was also

checked, has any convictions. The letter that shattered Michaels life came in January 2007, but the origins of the trauma lay five years earlier, when he had embarked on a difficult relationship with a much younger woman. Despite their age difference, things went well at first after they were introduced through friends. She was the first woman Id dated since splitting up with my wife, he recalls. At first I didnt think of having a relationship with her because, at 29, she was much younger than me. But she was bubbly and got on well with the boys. It was only after a few months that I realised she was unstable and had a drink problem. She would swear in front of the boys and I ended the relationship. He had no inkling that she might be pregnant and that, he thought, was the end of the matter. Indeed, it was not long before he met Alex through a friendship website. Like Michael, she has three grown-up children and, again like Michael, she had spent years bringing them up single-handedly. She worked for US military intelligence, where she studied for degrees in psychology and theology. Michael and Alex married a few months after meeting and settled down to a domestic routine, enjoying rounds of golf, games of bowls, trips to the cinema and regular visits to church. That all changed with Hampshire County Councils bombshell. It was a terrible shock, recalls Alex. Michael was told by a social worker that his child had been put into foster care. At 53, Alex thought she had said goodbye to bringing up a child, but she was as determined as her husband to welcome Andrew into the family. That was where he belonged, she says. Not with strangers to whom he is not related. The couple, whose children had also come round to the idea of embracing a new sibling into their lives, visited Hampshire Social Services headquarters in Winchester, where they were shown Andrews picture. With hindsight, they were naively optimistic. Immediately infatuated, they dug out Scalextric and Lego sets, embarked on plans to turn their loft into a fourth bedroom and even researched school places. He looked just like his daddy, says Alex. We were determined that although hed had such a dreadful start in life, wed soon make it all up to him. When, two weeks later, DNA tests confirmed that Michael was the father, the couple instructed a solicitor to stop the adoption order and begin their own custody proceedings. I thought that once Social Services saw our happy family home and how much we wanted Andrew to be a part of it, it would only be a matter of weeks before he would come to live with us, says Michael. But then came the breathtaking twist. At our second meeting with Social Services a social worker told us, Andrew needs an organ transplant and, as you know, an organ is best donated from a blood relative. The couple were left in no doubt that Michaels co-operation was essential if his son was to stand a good chance of surviving. His mother, they learned, had initially agreed to be the donor but changed her mind on the grounds that it would hinder her chances of having another child. Social workers told Michael that he, and his children, were the next choice. He admits: I was taken aback but, of course, desperately worried and keen to help my son.

Meanwhile, two independent social workers were assigned to assess Michael and Alex as potential parents for Andrew. It was, by all accounts, a rigorous process. I was surprised to be interrogated by a total stranger, he says, but I hid nothing. Yet, over a dozen visits, the questions became increasingly invasive. The worst questions were about our sex life, he says. They kept asking how healthy it was - we took it to mean how many times a week we made love - and if we indulged in 'normal' sex. Alex, who admits she didnt take kindly to the intrusion, adds: I felt that side of our marriage was private and we didnt see how it could be relevant. In the end I replied, None of your business and I am not happy to elaborate further. Perhaps it is because Im an American and a Christian, but I found the Social Services attitude difficult to understand. Meanwhile, the truth about Andrews situation gradually emerged. Finding a permanent home was not easy, however. The boys illness demanded a special diet and regular hospital visits. After his rejection by one set of foster parents, his photograph had to be posted on an adoption website before finally, in 2006, the couple who were eventually to adopt him came forward. I couldnt believe this could have happened to my son, says Michael. I found it incredible. Social Services told me in our first phone conversation that Andrew's mother had named me as the father. Yet, as far as I can see, they made no effort to find me. I have lived in the same house for 11 years. I am on the electoral roll and in the phone book. Hampshire County Council says it did its best to locate Michael. A care order would not have been made had the court not been satisfied that every effort had been made to locate Mr Shergold, says council leader Ken Thornber. We have apologised to Mr Shergold for our failure to find him during care proceedings. All circumstances leading to a child coming into care involve a degree of human tragedy and require very finely balanced judgments to be made. The needs of the child must always be the paramount concern and the judge did conclude that the local authority did its best, when it discovered the difficult situation that had arisen, to communicate with Mr Shergold and establish what contribution he could make to his sons life. Michael believes he was eventually traced only because doctors said Andrew would need a transplant. Indeed, he now believes that even his attempt to adopt Andrew was something of a charade. We began to feel that Social Services had let us go through the custody proceedings for nothing - that the adoption was arranged and they had no intention of placing Andrew with us, he says. The Shergolds were refused custody at Portsmouth County Court last November. The judge admitted the background had been difficult and somewhat unsatisfactory but ruled that moving Andrew in with the Shergolds would cause him unnecessary difficulty and disruption. Just two days later - suspiciously quickly in the view of the Shergolds - he had been formally adopted, leaving the Shergolds in the cold. Even their request that Michael should be able to see him for visits was turned down on the grounds that it would be unsettling for Andrew, who was bonding with his new family. Yet Andrew's mother, who was judged unfit, is still allowed to visit Andrew twice a year. Meanwhile, Hampshire Social Services are still pressing Michael to donate an organ. Even if Michael decides to do so, it will make no difference. I was stunned, he says. I asked them what would happen if

I gave him a part of my body. They said that even then, I wouldnt be allowed contact. Andrew would not even be told who donated the organ as this would be 'too unsettling'. The dilemma has had damaging repercussions for the Shergold family. Michael says his children are wounded and that even his marriage has suffered. The criticism they endured during the adoption process hardly helped. Social Services accused me of being unco-operative, explains Alex. They made it plain they didnt like me. It seems being American was a problem and so too, I think, was the colour of my skin. Alex is mixed-race. One official report on the couple expressed concern that Andrew would be brought up in a dual-ethnicity family. They made out I was a foreigner who had no idea how to look after a child, she says. Ive raised three children. Despite the fact that they live in the States, we are incredibly close. I also think of Michaels sons as my own. I began to think that if I wasnt around, Michael would have got custody. One night I suggested to Michael and his sons that I leave. Thankfully, they wouldnt hear of it. But the stress has been unbearable. Undoubtedly, Michael and I would have split up if our relationship wasnt so strong. And Michael adds: Social Services have never given me a concrete reason why my wife and I are not suitable. That is because there is no reason. The couple did not qualify for legal aid and have spent 4,000 on solicitors. Now they have been told there is no further action they can take. Overshadowing everything, however, is the decision to donate an organ. If I dont donate an organ, Andrew might not live long enough to meet me and the guilt would probably be too much to live with, he says. If I do, it will be as if I am donating to someone who I dont really know exists. How can social workers sleep at night, knowing they have separated a boy from his real father, a good father who has already successfully raised three children? They wont even pass on birthday cards. They have stormed in and left us to pick up the pieces. I cannot believe that in this country someone can stop you seeing your own child when you have done nothing wrong. Our family seems incomplete. If I see a boy in the street, I wonder if its him. I dream of him meeting his brothers and sister and joining us when we have big birthday celebrations. My only hope is that he can choose to trace me when he is 18. But what if he doesnt live that long or is told lies about me that his father is dead or didnt want him? It breaks my heart to think we may never meet. ----------

No complicated Bill is needed to remedy this situation. Quite simply every child should have access to their original and truthful birth certificate clearly identifying parents where known whether they be natural or donors. The State should outlaw the production of deliberately fake birth certificates and should tell all children the truth about their parentage when asked. Forced and closed adoptions are both recent and equally undesirable innovations.They serve to demonstrate once again that parents

should never be deprived of knowing where their children are, or worse still be jailed for trying to find out!

Mother too stupid to keep child The Sunday Times May 31, 2009 Daniel Foggo
A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not clever enough to look after her. The woman, who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact. The adoption is going ahead despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel, 24, has no learning difficulties and good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range. Her daughter, K, was born prematurely and officials felt Rachel lacked the intelligence to cope with her complex medical needs Baby K was released from hospital into care and is currently with a foster family. Her health has now improved to the point where she needs little or no day-to-day medical care. Rachel said last night: I have been totally let down by the system. All I want is to care for my daughter but the council and the court are determined not to let me. The court here has now ordered that my contact with my daughter must be reduced from every fortnight until in three months time it will all be over and I will never see her again. Rachel has now lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, which has the power to stop the child being given to another family. She has also applied for a judicial review of the adoption order. Her attempts to fight Nottingham city councils adoption of her daughter have been hampered because her case was taken over by the official solicitor,* the government-funded lawyer who acts for those unable to represent themselves. He was brought in to represent Rachels interests because she was judged to be intellectually incapable of instructing her own solicitor. He declined to contest the councils adoption application, despite her wish to do so. After the psychiatrists assessment of Rachel, the court has now acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. It has nevertheless refused her attempts to halt the adoption process. John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachels behalf, said: The way Rachel has been treated is appalling. She has been swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit. *BEWARE

the "Official Solicitor" ! If you get too upset or too excited the judge may decide you are not capable of instructing a solicitor or representing yourself and will appoint this parasite to represent you instead.He is by

law forbidden to put on a case for you as his job is simply to agree with the "SS" ,to refuse to let you speak, and ensure that you lose your precious children without being allowed to say a word !! Even if you stay calm but still show hostility the judge may appoint a psychologist recommended by the "SS" to give you an IQ test and if through nerves etc your results are poor once again the Official Solicitor will be appointed to "represent" you.Alas,thanks to him, you will be gagged, and your

children will be lost to forced adoption .588 cases like this have taken place in the family courts since Jan 2006 until now (Sunday Times June 14 2009)
---------

Judges condemn foul play on adoptions

Rosemary Bennett, The Times 2/5/2008 Two senior judges have strongly criticised a local authority that forced through the adoption of a baby girl against the wishes of her father. Lord Justice Thorpe accused East Sussex County Council of being determined to have the child adopted by means more foul than fair, while Lord Justice Wall accused it of disgraceful conduct. He ordered that copies of their ruling, handed down at the Court of Appeal yesterday, be sent to all family judges and every adoption agency in the country as a warning that the wishes of both parents had to be taken into account in care proceedings. The case involved a child, known as J- L, who was adopted earlier this year. She was born in November 2006 after a casual relationship between her mother and father, known as MC. He only knew that he had a daughter after the local authority contacted him last summer to tell him care proceedings were under way and asked for a DNA test. The mother had been living with her baby daughter in a special unit, but had abandoned the baby there. The local authority recommended adoption and placed J-L with foster parents in the meantime. The father said that he was unable to take part in the initial care proceedings because he was in hospital after a heart attack. When he discovered that adoption plans were well advanced, he went to solicitors who immediately contacted the local authority to try to stop them. However, his intervention through a solicitors letter was ignored and never recorded formally at subsequent meetings. The local authority then allowed the adoptive parents to begin to look after the baby girl the day before the fathers legal case went to court. A further attempt by him to stop the adoption was blocked by the council using the 2002 Adoption and Children Act. Yesterdays ruling was in response to the fathers appeal on grounds of a breach to his human rights. The councils failure to answer that letter and subsequent placement on the eve of the

hearing give rise to the clearest inference that the council was out to gain its ends by means more foul than fair, Lord Justice Wall said. There are many who assert that councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children that they have placed for adoption. When such suspicions are rife, a history such as this only serves to fuel public distrust in the good faith of public authority.

People still find it hard to believe that in the UK secret family courts are taking thousands of children annually from parents that have never been accused or charged, let alone convicted of any CRIME. Yet that is exactly what is happening right now! These children are split up permanently from their grief stricken families for the rest of their lives. They are then given up for adoption to anonymous strangers so that government adoption targets can be met. Local authorities can then be rewarded by massive extra funding from central government under public service agreements. Just look at this answer to a parliamentary question by the Secretary of State! Adoption: Standards
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities have received payments from central Government for achieving adoption target levels; and how much each received in each of the last three years. [151067] John Healey: I have been asked to reply. 30 local authorities have been rewarded for successfully achieving adoption targets in their local public service agreements (LPSA). The better outcomes and amount of performance reward grant (PRG) each has received over the three years 2004/05 to 2006/07 in relation to their performance in these targets is set out in the following table. In addition, 13 local authorities did not achieve the adoption targets in their local PSA and hence received no PRG for this target. One local authority is still to make a claim Local PSAswhich are negotiated between local authorities and central Government policy departments, facilitated by the DCLGhave helped to incentivise local authorities and partners to provide better public services to their citizens around priorities for improvement locally. Evaluation shows they have been successful in doing this, with real benefits in improved outcomes for local people and communities.

3 Sep 2007 : Column 1703W

Local PSA adoption and placement targets: payments made to date under local PSAs Local authority Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Amount of reward grant paid () 210,173.00

Blackburn with Darwen Bristol City Council Buckinghamshire County Council Bromley (LB) Camden (LB) Cheshire County Council Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Durham County Council Enfield (LB) Essex County Council Gloucestershire County Council Greenwich (LB) Halton Borough Council Hampshire Hounslow (LB) Kensington and Chelsea (LB) Kent County Council Lewisham (LB) Liverpool City Council Luton Borough Council Manchester City Council Merton Borough Council Northamptonshire County Council Sheffield City Council Southwark (LB) St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Wandsworth (LB) Warwickshire County Council York City Council

307,367.00 307,512.00 526,958.00 499,440.00 318,916.50 685,134.00 578,333.00 502,675.00 244,963.00 2,469,200.00 612,209.00 580,996.00 153,938.00 1,675,619.00 165,019.00 339,117.00 2,156,583.00 602,854.00 347,404.00 400,027.00 984,877.00 358,708.00 1,119,115.00 1,025,000.00 435,242.00 83,845.00 387,627.00 231,061.00 203,620.00

GOOD NEWS! Thanks in some small measure to this site and all the others who have campaigned adoption targets were abandoned on April 1st 2008.The original insruction from the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to increase adoptions by 40% still remains in force however and social workers all know the way to gain "brownie points" with their bosses is to achieve as many adoptions as possible !

Adoption target met

by Hammersmith

and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008

101 children adopted in the last three years More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable. The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for 500,000 of funding. At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted - a figure that was then considered to be very high. However, H&Fs adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.

A TRUE STORY T'was the night before Christmas,the four children slept The "ss" were coming,their mother just wept! Five burly policemen soon broke down the door, We've come for your children,we must take all four! The "ss" have told you "keep perfectly calm" Your kids are at risk of emotional harm! So struggling and kicking and screaming with fright Four little children went off in the night! The mother sat weeping, her children were lost Adoption the target, they don't count the cost! They snatch newborn babies with never a smile, Each one an achievement to add to the file................ IAN JOSEPHS
WHO PROFITS FROM THE ADOPTION RACKET?
Local Authorities(stars,beacon status, and financial rewards under public service agreements .(see above) Very highly paid "professionals" presume to "assess" the parenting skills of distraught mothers who have had their children taken into care.(around 3000 per 2-3 hour session ),"legal aid lawyers" (a case in the family courts costs an average of 70,000 per day so total legal costs of over 500,000 for one case are not unusual! ,)Therapists, psychiatrists , and counsellors who are paid around 3000 for a few hours work eagerly predict that parents might "emotionally abuse" their children at some time in the future. Tame medical experts somehow always side with social services against the parents.(They also

receive around 3000 for one afternoon session plus a report) Foster parents(up to 400per week per child plus allowances for Xmas and holidays)Special schools charging up to 7000 per week per child(as shown on tv channel 4,) Adoption and fostering agencies charging up to 18,000 per placement.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/pdf/? inspectionNumber=478226&providerCategory ID=8&fileName=\\ey\\SC\\SC_SC060131_20060502.pdf ----------------- --------------

Here at last is PROOF that all concerned in "child protection" are receiving vast sums of money for work that can at best be described as "destructive" and at worst "criminal"...... There is NO conspiracy,no need
for one ! Just a lot of different people all earning a lot of money in their different ways.All keen to keep on doing so and with one view in common "Don't rock the boat !"

1: Fosterers typically 400/ week per child! 2: Special children's homes typically 7,000/ week per child! 3: Lawyers and court costs typically 500,000 per case! 4: Experts typically 28,000 for a simple report! 5: Adoption agencies make millions (18,000/placement) 6: Local authorities get millions hitting adoption targets!

1: BALLOONS AND FAMILY FUN TO PROMOTE FOSTERING

Hundreds of balloons will be released from Slough town centre to mark a special event to launch Sloughs new fostering Allowance Scheme. Saturday, July 2 will encourage more people to consider becoming foster parents to local children and see the launch of a new fostering allowance of

400 per week.

Between noon and 4pm, the Town Square will be bustling with activities including face painting and balloon modelling. Football fans should be sure to bring a camera as a David Beckham look-a-like will be ready to pose for photos. Janet Tomlinson, head of education and childrens services at Slough Borough Council, will make a short speech at 1pm before the balloon release. Team members from Sloughs Family Placement Services will be giving out

fostering information including the fostering freephone number, car stickers, bookmarks, keyrings, wristbands and balloons. Janet Tomlinson said: "Fostering offers great challenges and great rewards. Even if youve never thought about it before, why not come down on July 2 to find out more?" The freephone fostering number is 0800 073 0291. ----------

2. DISPATCHES: PROFITING FROM KIDS IN CARE

Channel 4, Thursday 25 November, 9pm In 2004, caring for Britain's most vulnerable children is a multi- million pound industry. Children in care cost the taxpayer over 830 million pounds a year. That's an average of 2,500 per child, per week - more than four times what it would cost to send a child to Eton. Yet many homes are failing to provide children with even a basic standard of care. In this programme, Dispatches goes undercover to investigate the consequences of the increased privatisation of residential children's homes. The investigation reveals how homes are run by private businessmen charging social services departments enormous and unethical mark-ups on services - many of which aren't even provided. Fees of 7,000 a week are not unusual yet Dispatches finds private children's homes which are failing the children in many respects. Homes often use untrained, and sometimes unvetted, agency staff to look after some of the UK's most at risk youngsters - many of whom have been the victims of abuse, prostitution and drugs. The current system is failing thousands of children a year. According to a recent report, three in five kids leave care with no qualifications at all. One in five will be homeless after two years and one in three of the current prison population has previously been in care. Tragically, some don't make it at all, with approximately 60 youngsters dying in children's homes every year. Information, advice and support for people who are in care, or have been in the past, can be found by checking out the following organisations and websites. ----------

3: COUNCIL MUST PAY 500,000 FOR WRONGLY TAKING GIRL INTO CARE

Clare Dyer, legal editor The Guardian, Friday March 17 2006 The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Thursday March 23 2006 (The headline for the article below was misleading. As the story made clear, the 500,000 was the total cost to public funds. The council was ordered to pay the parents 200,000 legal aid costs and will have to meet its own costs. The child would also have been represented and payment of those costs will be met from public funds). A couple had their family life torn apart when social workers wrongly took their nine-year-old daughter into emergency care without good reason and kept her from her parents for 14 months, a high court judge said yesterday. Mr Justice McFarlane castigated the social workers for "multiple failings" and criticised the family court magistrates who had granted the emergency order. The costs of the case, payable from public funds, were 500,000, including the parents' legal aid costs of 200,000, which the judge ordered the local council to pay. The judge took the unusual step of making his judgment public after a hearing behind closed doors, although the family, the local authority and the magistrates court are all unnamed. He laid down guidelines to prevent future miscarriages of justice which are certain to lead social services departments and magistrates courts to re-examine their practices. He said it gave him "absolutely no pleasure to have to record the multiple failings of the local authority in this case". But to do so was "necessary not only in order to come to a conclusion on the issues in this case, but also in order that lessons may be learned for the future". He said the girl's mother had sought the help of social services and child health services because her daughter, the couple's only child, was displaying some "modest behavioural difficulties". Mother and daughter had been referred to the child guidance unit for psychotherapy and the girl had been put on the local child protection register. The notes of a social services planning meeting read: "No neglect issues. Home and care good. Mother and child have good relationship. Detrimental to move." But social workers suspected it was a case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy now called fabricated or induced illness (FII) -a rare form of child abuse in which a mother or carer makes a child ill or fakes illness to get attention. At the end of a case conference on the girl in November 2004, social services received a phone call from a nurse at the local hospital.

They were told that the mother had taken the girl there with stomach pains and was asking to see a doctor after the nurse found nothing wrong. Within hours and without any information from the doctor, social workers were at the magistrates court seeking an emergency protection order allowing the girl to be taken from her parents immediately. They acted without telling the parents and without seeking any medical opinion to try to confirm their suspicions. The girl had had medical treatment before and no doctor had suggested fabricated illness. The council's actions were described by the mother's counsel as "outrageous" and "inexcusable" leading, as it did, to "the destruction of this family's ordinary life". Those descriptions "do not, in my view, overstate the quality of what took place on that day", the judge said. The social services team leader, who had no detailed knowledge of the case, made 13 assertions to the magistrates, of which every one was "misleading or incomplete or wrong". He ruled that the council had no case to take the girl into care and made her a ward of court "to facilitate the child's return home". ----------

4: THE EXPERT AS JUDGE AND JURY

After a host of miscarriages of justice based on discredited expert witnesses, calls are growing for radical reform of their use in court, writes Lois Rogers The Sunday Times, Nov 18 2007 Yet another woman was sent to prison last week, following expert evidence that she had shaken to death a baby in her care. Keran Henderson, a 42-year-old childminder, was said to have killed 11- month-old Maeve Sheppard, by shaking her so violently she was left blind and brain-damaged. The infant died in hospital a few days later. The case has grim echoes of those of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel, all of whom were accused of killing their children only to be found innocent later. Clark, a solicitor, who was released from prison after serving three years, died last March as a result of psychological trauma and alcoholism caused by her ordeal. At the Court of Appeal, two days after the judgment on Henderson, a retrial was ordered in the case of Barry George, the loner convicted of killing the television personality Jill Dando in 1999 with a single shot to the head. Expert testimony as to the significance of a particle of gunshot matter in his pocket is being challenged.

There has also been the recent conviction of the true killer of schoolgirl Lesley Molseed, 32 years after the event and after Stefan Kiszko had served 16 years for the sexually motivated killing, even though medical evidence could have pointed out his infertility proved his innocence. Once again the review of the evidence threw a spotlight on the role of expert witnesses, whose testimony is often crucial in criminal cases but can be unreliable. Our blind faith in scientific opinion makes us reluctant to question pronouncements by experts, but while the law requires everyone from plumbers to nurses to be trained, registered and checked, there is no such requirement for witnesses who may be pronouncing on matters of life and death in court. A study by senior barrister Penny Cooper of City University in London, has shown that the majority of lawyers and judges do not bother to check the qualifications of experts they approach to bolster an aspect of their case. She also found a substantial number of the expert witnesses had undergone no training to understand their legal duty. The disquiet this arouses has led to a clamour for legislation to require expert witnesses to be regulated. But how to do that without calling into question thousands of court decisions will not be an easy task. There is already acute unease over the proliferation of parents convicted of causing cot deaths, shaking babies to death, or harming them by creating symptoms of fictitious illness. Henderson, for instance, a mother of two herself, a long-term childminder and stalwart volunteer of her local Beaver Scout group, was sentenced to three years in prison for shaking baby Maeve so violently that she was left with fatal brain damage, despite the fact there was no evidence of any grip marks on the child, which would normally be expected to accompany such an action. Her husband, a former police officer, has said she will appeal and hopes to create a campaign similar to that run by Sally Clarks family, to try to prove his wifes innocence. Many character witnesses spoke up for Henderson in court and the family has dozens of supporters in their home village of Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire. Some even believe her prosecution was only pursued because of the successful appeal by Roy Meadow, the expert paediatrician whose evidence led to the conviction of Sally Clark. Following the Clark case, in which Meadow quoted a completely erroneous statistic suggesting the chances of Clarks babies having died naturally were one

in 73m, he was struck off by the General Medical Council (GMC) for misconduct. The Court of Appeal agreed he had acted in good faith. In the meantime, Alan Williams, the Home Office pathologist who conducted post-mortems on Clarks two infant sons, was less lucky. His appeal against a GMC finding of serious professional misconduct was rejected. Williams was accused of tailoring his diagnoses of the nature of the babies deaths to fit the police case against Clark. The GMC is currently hearing a claim of gross professional misconduct against paediatrician Dr David Southall. The council has received evidence alleging that Southall falsified his curriculum vitae. Southalls evidence has figured highly in at least 50 criminal cases and possibly hundreds of family court cases held in secret, which have led to children being removed from their parents. Questions of how frequently babies really are shaken to death, and indeed if it is possible to do so, have divided medical opinion for some years. There have, however, been up to 200 convictions annually for related forms of violence against babies and young children. After Clark, Cannings and Patel, another bizarre case was overturned. Ian and Angela Gay, who had been convicted of poisoning their three-year-old adopted son with salt, were cleared when it was revealed the boy was suffering from a rare, and fatal, congenital abnormality. Recently, the attorney-general ordered a review of almost 300 criminal convictions and 30,000 family court proceedings where children were taken into care. Only four were referred to the Court of Appeal. This, according to critics, was a function of the way the review was done, with authorities being asked to review their own decisions. Social workers say the crusade to root out dangerous adults is to some extent a reaction to a previous era of regular criticism of their profession when children were left to die at the hands of their parents. Although some acknowledge the pendulum may now have swung too far, others are furious: Do people think we spend all our time trying to break up families for no good reason? said John Coughlan, a joint-president of the Association of Directors of Childrens Services. In comparison with the volume of cases, the number of errors is tiny. We never rely on expert witnesses alone. Others argue that the opinion of expert witnesses is often the decisive factor. And as we have seen most recently with Barry George, it is not just child murder cases that have turned on such evidence.

Last year the Home Office took the unprecedented step of holding a disciplinary tribunal against Michael Heath, one of its most senior forensic pathologists: 20 charges against him were upheld. One man was subsequently cleared of murder, and numerous other convictions have been called into question. A spate of other convictions came from evidence supplied by Paula Lannas, another Home Office forensic specialist who was the subject of a long-delayed disciplinary hearing that collapsed because those investigating her said they had a conflict of interest. Not only has Lannas been deprived of an opportunity to clear her name, but dozens of prisoners who claim they were victims of her errors have been unable to get the evidence reviewed. Police forensic scientist Peter Ablett, who is now chief executive of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, points out there are only three ways to prove a crime: a reliable eyewitness, a confession, or forensics. The advent of DNA technology and other advances in recent years has brought increasing reliance on forensics, yet only about 3,000 of the estimated 8,000 expert witnesses operating are members of the council and signed up to its code of practice. He said many of those who are not are unaware that their duty is to give impartial evidence to the court, not to bolster the case of their paymaster. City Universitys Cooper, who is also a governor of the Expert Witness Institute, was concerned to discover during her research that not only have one in five experts undergone no training to understand this duty, but one in 10 was so arrogant they said they saw no need for it. There should be a requirement for them to be trained, and there should be rules requiring judges and lawyers to consider their credentials before accepting them as expert witnesses, she said. Such a provision cannot come soon enough. A review is still going on of 700 cases in which bogus forensic scientist Gene Morrison gave evidence. Morrison, 48, from Manchester who was sentenced to five years for fraud in February, admitted he pretended to be an expert witness and bought his qualifications on the internet because it seemed easier than getting real ones. For many of the genuinely qualified experts, legal work isa lucrative sideline, and if they are perceived to be able to tailor their evidence convincingly, the commissions keep flowing in. John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning about the misuse of medical evidence, says fees for a basic written opinion, based on reading through existing files, start at 4,000. If the expert concludes there is a case to answer, they attract court attendance fees as well. I have known experts get as much as 28,000 for one report, said Hemming,

who is lobbying for experts to be required to produce the scientific publications on which their opinion is based: Unless we start using evidence-based evidence in court, we will get nowhere. ----------

5: FIRMS CASH IN ON SHORTAGE OF FOSTER HOMES

Published: Sunday, 2 October, 2005, Evening Standard. LONDON: Private agencies are making millions of pounds out of a critical shortage of foster homes for children. Firms are charging councils on average 800 per child per week, an EVENING STANDARD investigation revealed. This amounts to 41,600 a year to find suitable homes for the most vulnerable children in society. One head of social services said: It is cheaper to send the children to Eton. London councils are so desperate to hold on to their foster parents that two are offering them free loft conversions - worth up to 30,000 - so they can take in more children. Britains largest independent agency Foster Care Associates had a 56mn turnover in 2003, the last year for which accounts are available. Its eight directors - seven of them social workers who set up the company 10 years ago - paid themselves total fees of more than 2.2mn as well as sharing pre-tax profits of almost 900,000. The directors awarded themselves on average 285,000 each - about 10 times the annual salary of a social worker. There is an estimated shortage of 10,000 foster carers across the UK. This has driven up the prices charged by the 150 or so independent agencies. It costs councils between 300 and 400 a week to place children with their own approved foster carers but they cannot meet the demand and have to turn to outside agencies. More difficult children can cost as much as 1,500 per week to place in foster homes. The problem is especially acute in London, where out of 11,500 fostered children up to one-third are found homes through independent agencies. Many of them are dumped in outlying towns around the capital. A total of 60,000 children are fostered nationally.

A spokesman at the department for education said: We know there are too many children being placed outside of authorities. We commissioned a report last year looking at how we can reduce that number. Out of the 11,500 fostered children in London, half of them are teenagers, about 3,000 aged eight to 12 and 2,500 aged under eight. Children are typically being sent from London boroughs to Kent, miles from their schools and friends. Some 330 problem children from London are being fostered in the Margate area. This has prompted the Kent child protection committee to compile a report, sent to ministers, warning the town is now at a tipping point and branding the situation explosive. Paul Fallon, director of social services at Barnet council and spokesman for all Londons social services directors, said: Every penny we spend on one child is a penny we cant spend on another child. If I place a child with Barnet it is 400. But it costs me about double that to place a child in an independent placement. It is a sellers market and that will impact on prices. We are stuck. It is cheaper to send children to Eton. He estimated that in Barnet about 30 to 40 children - about 10% of the number needing foster care - are unaccompanied child refugees. They have helped to swell numbers of children needing placements, putting added pressure on social services. A spokeswoman for Richmond council, where private places at 900 cost three times as much as council places, said: In emergencies we will negotiate with another borough for a temporary foster place, but thats very rare. The crisis has prompted Barnet council and Hammersmith and Fulham to offer grants of up to 30,000 to foster parents to build loft conversions to house more children. A spokeswoman for Hammersmith and Fulham said the outlay would pay itself back within one to two years even if it creates just one extra fostering place. Defenders of private agencies point out councils often do not factor hidden staffing costs - such as administration and on-call social workers - into their weekly fees. Private agencies also point out they are often called upon to find placements for the most difficult children. They point out they also provide round-the-clock social worker support as well as educational support and therapy. Not all agencies are profit-making with fostering services carried out by charities such as Barnardos and NCH.

Marcelle Ibbetson, service development manager at NCH, which also typically charges 800 a week, said: We dont think local authorities have properly costed the real cost of foster care. Their behind the scenes costs are hidden. What we provide is private placements at the specialist end of the market. None of the directors of Foster Care Associates was available for comment. But in an interview last year Sally Melbourne, FCAs director for the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region, said: The majority of the fee we charge local authorities goes to the carer and on the welfare of the child. We are a business but we make very little profit, last year we made 5% profit. A spokesman for the company added: The company specialises in children that are difficult to place. That is not necessarily behaviourally difficult children but it could be kids with five siblings that need to be kept together or from the ethnic minorities that needs to be placed in their own community. We offer a complete support structure including therapy and education, which is why the costing may look more expensive. LONDON - EVENING STANDARD. ----------

6: Written Parliamentary answers So many times have the "SS" denied the existence of adoption targets it is worth repeating again that they did exist and that local authorities greatly profited from them !
Monday, 3 September 2007 Children, Schools and Families Adoption: StandardsAll Written Answers on 3 Sep 2007

Tim Loughton MP (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative) To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities have received payments from central Government for achieving adoption target levels; and how much each received in each of the last three years. John Healey (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government) I have been asked to reply. 30 local authorities have been rewarded for successfully achieving adoption targets in their local public service agreements (LPSA). The better outcomes and amount of 'performance reward grant' (PRG) each has received over the three

years 2004/05 to 2006/07 in relation to their performance in these targets is set out in the following table. In addition, 13 local authorities did not achieve the adoption targets in their local PSA and hence received no PRG for this target. One local authority is still to make a claim Local PSAswhich are negotiated between local authorities and central Government policy departments, facilitated by the DCLGhave helped to incentivise local authorities and partners to provide better public services to their citizens around priorities for improvement locally. Evaluation shows they have been successful in doing this, with real benefits in improved outcomes for local people and communities. Local PSA adoption and placement targets: payments made to date under local PSAs Local authority Amount of 'reward grant' paid () Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 210,173.00 Blackburn with Darwen 307,367.00 Bristol City Council 307,512.00 Buckinghamshire County Council 526,958.00 Bromley (LB) 499,440.00 Camden (LB) 318,916.50 Cheshire County Council 685,134.00 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 578,333.00 Durham County Council 502,675.00 Enfield (LB) 244,963.00 Essex County Council 2,469,200.00 Gloucestershire County Council 612,209.00 Greenwich (LB) 580,996.00 Halton Borough Council 153,938.00 Hampshire 1,675,619.00 Hounslow (LB) 165,019.00 Kensington and Chelsea (LB) 339,117.00 Kent County Council 2,156,583.00 Lewisham (LB) 602,854.00 Liverpool City Council 347,404.00 Luton Borough Council 400,027.00 Manchester City Council 984,877.00 Merton Borough Council 358,708.00 Northamptonshire County Council 1,119,115.00 Sheffield City Council 1,025,000.00 Southwark (LB) 435,242.00 St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 83,845.00 Wandsworth (LB) 387,627.00 Warwickshire County Council 231,061.00 York City Council 203,620.00

Back to Barristers 'exploiting misery' as fees in family law cases rise 25% in 5 years
Daily Mail Online June 19th 2008 Barristers have been making millions of extra pounds from the misery of families and children caught up in the family courts, according to new figures released by ministers yesterday. Fees paid out of taxpayer-funded legal aid to barristers in family court cases have gone up by almost a third in five years and have now reached nearly 100million a year, they showed. And there have been big increases in claims by barristers for obscure special payments that provide 'uplift' and 'bolt-ons' to their basic charges. Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice lifted a corner of the blanket of official secrecy that surrounds the family courts to disclose that barristers who appear in them can claim bonuses including bizarre 'court bundle payments'.

These give barristers extra money if there are more than 176 pages to their court papers and extra still if there are over 350 pages. Yet another court bundle payment is paid if a barrister carries over 700 pages of papers.
Court bundle payments alone meant taxpayers were charged an extra 8.6million by barristers last year. -------------------------------

The Times on line

June 19th 2008 The Bar Council, which represents nearly 15,000 barristers in England and Wales, will announce its proposals in a paper before an all-party meeting of MPs tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Legal Services Commission, which runs the legal aid scheme, has just released figures to show how much barristers are earning from legal aid work. Crispin Passmore, the commissions policy director for civil legal aid, said that the sum spent on barristers fees since 2003-04 had risen from 71 million to nearly 100

million. The number of barristers earning more than 100,000 from family legal aid work had gone up by 14 per cent in the 12 months between mid2005 and mid2006, he added. The average annual earnings from family legal aid work is 140,000 and that doesnt include any privately paid work they might do. So we are not talking about the minimum wage. ----------------- -------------Do we get value for money? Well this is what the BBC had to say! Can children in care avoid prison? Wednesday 15th MAY 2002

David Akinsanya was raised by the state and in a special BBC Two documentary he asks why so many kids leaving the care system end up in prison. Government statistics show that 49 per cent of children in care go straight to prison. With 56,000 children in the British care system today, that means 28,000 are set to receive custodial sentences. David Akinsanya believes the problem lies with the care system itself. He says the care system is inflexible and does not offer appropriate care to young people.

Research found that 42 per cent of young prostitutes had been in care at some point
The "INDEPENDENT" 14 December 2006 The Government's own research highlights how the care system is not simply a negligent parent but at times probably more dangerous than the family from which some children have been taken. A study commissioned by the Home Office has looked at the link between hard drug use, sex work and various vulnerability factors. The results are astonishing, if not heartbreaking.

Less than 1 per cent of the child population is looked after by the state, but the research found that 42 per cent of young women prostitutes interviewed had been in care at some point in their lives. "This is an extraordinary figure, which demonstrates that looked after children are very vulnerable to involvement in drug use and sexual abuse through prostitution," the report concluded. ---------------------

2 children in care die of neglect each week The People, 22 June 2008 By David Collins Children placed in care are three times more likely to die than others, a shock report has revealed. In one year, 16 in 10,000 vulnerable youngsters died in care. The national death rate for children was five in every 10,000. The study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families showed that 800 youngsters have died in care over the last ten years - an average of two a week.
Malnutrition and diseases were the main causes of death. Last year 12,000 kids in care had no immunisations, 9,600 had no health check ups and 8,400 never saw a dentist. By law children should get checks within two weeks of going into care. In some local authority areas, less than 50 per cent do. A Children and Young Persons Bill, which should improve matters, goes before MPs tomorrow. Tim Loughton, Shadow Minister for Children, said: "Despite the efforts of beleaguered social workers, the system is failing." ---------------------

Extract from the Telegraph:Official figures show that only six per cent of the 60,000 children in care gain five or more A* to C GCSEs and more than a third are not entered for a single GCSE. Conviction rates for young people in care are three times the rate for other juveniles. One in four girls leaving care is pregnant or already a mother. A recent case which caused outrage involved a 12-year-old living in a children's home in Blackburn who became pregnant while working as a prostitute.

WHY ,WHY,WHY, when social workers and worse still judges decide healthy happy children are "at risk" from their own parents do they not compare that risk with the horrific risks children run when put into the care system? Leaving school with no qualifications,ending up in prison, or working as prostitutes (often pregnant from unknown fathers),or worse still dying violently either in care or soon after leaving it ! Even if they survive all the above horrors and settle down to form a new family with a loving and attentive partner the "SS" will rarely leave them alone ! Time and again the fact that the mother has been brought up in care is taken as proof that she is not capable of looking after her own children ! The unfortunate mother is usually put into an assessment process and more often than not ends up losing her children to adoption by strangers!In other words children are removed from parents deemed unsuitable by "experts" and then themselves deemed unsuitable to raise their own children such is the appalling standard of care inflicted on children hoping one day to be parents by an unfeeling state !
Dismal outcomes are the norm despite the 2.5 billion a year spent looking after them. It costs 100,000 a year to keep a child in a children's home, more than four times the fees at top private schools such as Eton or Winchester. Fostering can cost up to 30,000 a year, compared with the 7,500 a year that state boarding schools charge parents for accommodation, with the 5,000 cost of education covered by the local authorities. Harriet Harman (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Link to this | Hansard source My

hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which she has put to me in a written question, so I know what the answer is. Last year something like 200 people were

sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy. The idea that people are sent to prison without any reports of the proceedings makes even more important the work that we are undertaking with the family courts, and with the important intervention of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, to open them up so
that they act in the public interest while maintaining personal privacy.

Only in the SECRET family courts are punishments (losing their children to long term fostercare or worse still adoption by strangers) imposed on persons (parents) who have neither committed a crime nor even been accused of committing any crime! THERE IS NO OTHER CASE IN UK LAW WHERE THIS CAN HAPPEN! --------------------

British justice: a family ruined

A chilling example of our secret State where a mother and child are forced into hiding by Camilla Cavendish,The Times, February 21, 2008 Last autumn a small English congregation was rocked by the news that two of its parishioners had fled abroad. A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby. Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret. The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates. A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up. I will call this couple Hugh and Sarah. Neither they nor their families have ever been in trouble with the law, as far as I know. Sarah's only fault seems to have been to suffer through a violent and volatile first marriage, which produced a son. When the marriage ended, the boy was taken into temporary foster care for a few months - as a by-product of the marriage breakdown and against her will - while she sorted her life out and found them a new home. But even as she cleared every hurdle set by the court, social workers dreamt up new ones. The months dragged by. A psychologist said the boy was suffering terribly in care and was desperate to come home. Sarah's

mother and sister, both respected professionals with good incomes, apparently offered to foster or adopt him. The local authority did not even deign to reply. For a long time, Sarah and her family seem to have played along. At every new hearing they thought that common sense would prevail. But it didn't. The court appeared to blame her for not ending her marriage more quickly, which had put strain on the boy, while social workers seemed to insist that she now build a good relationship with the man she had left. Eventually, she came to believe that the local authority intended to have her son adopted. She also seems to have feared that they would take away her new baby, Hugh's baby, when it was born. One night in September they fled the country with the little boy. When Hugh returned a few days later, to keep his business going and his staff in jobs, he was arrested. Many people would think this man a hero. Instead, he received a far longer sentence 16 months for abduction - than many muggers. This kind of sentence might be justified, perhaps, to set an example to others. But the irony of this exemplary sentence is that no one was ever supposed to know the details. (I am treading a legal tightrope writing about it at all.) How could a secret sentence for a secret crime deter anyone? Sarah's baby has now been born, in hiding. I am told that the language from social services has become hysterical. But if the State was genuinely concerned for these two children, it would have put wanted pictures up in every newspaper in Europe. It won't do that, of course, because to name the woman and her children would be to tear a hole in the fabric of the secret State, a hole we could all see through. I would be able to tell you her side of the story, the child's side of the story. I would be able to tell you every vindictive twist of this saga. And the local authority knows perfectly well how it would look. So silence is maintained. And very effective it is too. The impotence is the worst thing. The way that perfectly decent individuals are gagged and unable to defend themselves undermines a fundamental principle of British law. I have a court order on my desk that threatens all the main actors in this case with dire consequences if they talk about it to anyone. Can that really be the way we run justice in a country that was the fount of the rule of law? At the heart of this story is a little boy who was wrenched from the mother he loves, bundled around in foster care and never told why, when she appears to have been perfectly capable of looking after him. When she had relatives who were perfectly capable of doing so. In the meantime, he was becoming more and more troubled and unhappy. To find safety and love, that little boy has had to leave England.

What does that say about our country? The public funds the judges, the courts, the social workers. It deserves to know what they do. That does not mean vilifying all social workers, or defending every parent. But it does mean ending the presumption of guilt that infects so many family court hearings. It does mean asking why certain local authorities seem unable to let go of children whose parents have resolved their difficulties. It does mean knowing how social workers could have got away with failing to return this particular boy, after his mother had met all the criteria set by a judge at the beginning. It is simply unacceptable that social services have put themselves above the law. We need these people to be named, and to hear in their words what happened. We need to open up the family courts. We need to tear down the wall of secrecy that has forced a decent woman to live as a fugitive, to save her little boy from a life with strangers, used like a pawn in a game of vengeance. Even if the local authority were to drop its case, it is hard to see how Sarah could ever trust them enough to return. At home, for their God- fearing congregation, the question is simple: what justice can ever be done behind closed doors? And in whose name? ----------------------

Jailed: The man who helped his wife flee abroad as social workers threatened to take their baby
By FIONA BARTON, Daily Mail 7th Feb 2008 A father is in jail and his wife is in hiding abroad with her children after he helped them flee the country to escape social services, it emerged yesterday. The businessman's wife was heavily pregnant with their first child - and was terrified the baby would be taken at birth by social workers - when he drove his family to Dover, and then on to Paris. She had a second reason for fleeing - she believed her eight-year-old son from a previous marriage was to be adopted against her wishes. Her 56-year-old husband was arrested on his return to Britain, and later jailed for 16 months for abducting the eight- year-old, known as Child S. The boy's mother, who is a professional woman in her 40s but cannot be identified for legal reasons, has since given birth prematurely to a girl and is struggling to cope far from friends and family.

Her plight raises further disturbing questions about the secret family courts which only last week were in the spotlight when social workers illegally snatched a newborn baby from its mother. Such cases are shrouded in the heaviest secrecy - with families threatened with jail if they discuss their fears that their children are being removed unjustly. But the story of the father and his family in hiding can be revealed for the first time because he appealed in a criminal case - which can be reported - begging for his 16month jail sentence to be reduced. His plea to the High Court was dismissed and the father, who has never seen his baby daughter, was led away in tears. A teacher friend of the father was also in tears. The friend said: "This isn't justice. They are a law- abiding family with respect for the police, but putting him in prison for protecting his family makes the law an ass. What good does it serve?" The three appeal judges were told yesterday how Child S's parents had separated in 2004 after a volatile and violent marriage. The mother claims she was told the boy would be taken into temporary foster care until she "sorted her life out". But when she asked for his return, social services refused. After months of legal battles, a family court judge sided with the council's plan to put the boy up for enforced adoption. By this time, the mother was pregnant. A friend said: "She was led to believe by social services she would have no chance of keeping the child she was carrying, which is outrageous. She was in despair." According to papers before the appeal court, she then made contact with her son at school last September and whispered instructions to him through the playground fence. In the early hours, Child S "crept out" of his foster home to meet his mother and stepfather and the escape plan was under way. The mother left a note which claimed: "We had to go." The court was told that

detectives believed the mother and children were in Spain or France. Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Bennett acknowledged the "powerful emotions" involved, but said: "Such proceedings taken by a local authority must be respected by parents. "Those who act must expect a prison sentence because a real punishment is called for and to deter others who might be subject to the same pressures." The judge expressed his disbelief that the father did not know the whereabouts of his wife. The father - who has adult children from a previous marriage - is being destroyed by prison, a friend said outside court. She added: "He is absolutely shell-shocked by the actions of the courts. Basically, they have said you are not allowed to be human in your responses. "What parent wouldn't act to stop their child being taken from them? He has aged ten years and gone grey with the worry of it all."

Free the 'Grandfather One'

Is it really in the public interest that a grandparent is jailed for not avoiding his grandson?

Camilla Cavendish, The Times, December 13, 2007 Two MPs have put down an early day motion in the House of Commons to bring attention to what they believe is a miscarriage of justice. It notes that a man named Charles Roy Taylor has been sent to prison for 20 months for being in contact with his stepgrandson. It wonders if this is a good use of scarce prison resources; and calls for the Secretary of State for Justice to consider whether he should be released for Christmas. Jack Straw no doubt has bigger things on his mind. And no story like this is ever as simple as it looks. But it deserves attention. Charles Roy Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He knew that a jail sentence was the penalty he might pay if he did not take steps to avoid his stepgrandson. But this seems desperately unfair. The teenager, whom we shall call John, has been in care since his mother died of an overdose. He has been phoning his grandparents and running away to see them for some time. In the end, social services became concerned that the grandparents were undermining the care plan by continuing to see John. It does not appear to be clear to the grandparents what the care plan is. But it does not seem to include them, even though they could presumably be John's first port of call when he leaves the care system at 18.

It is not the local authority's fault that this child had a difficult childhood. In taking responsibility for him, social workers were doing their best. Neither he nor his grandparents sound like the easiest people to deal with. But as in so many cases of this kind, bitterness between the family and the authorities appears to have escalated into a ludicrous situation, which simply cannot be in the best interests of the child. After a great deal of argy-bargy that I cannot go into for legal reasons, Mr Taylor last year gave an undertaking not to communicate with John until he was 18. But asking a man not to pick up the phone to a child, not to take him in when he turns up at the front door, is a harsh demand. It is tantamount to asking him to deny that the child exists, when what that child may need most is attention. In stalking cases, when Person A is ordered to avoid Person B, it is usually at the explicit request of Person B, who fears assault. In this case, Person B was apparently desperate to see his grandparents. He seems to see them as his best hope. So in whose interests was such an order? If he has broken his undertaking, Mr Taylor has surely been responding as humanely as most of us would. A jail sentence seems wholly disproportionate. When I first learnt of this case I felt that there must be more to it. That perhaps the grandparents were suspected of abuse. I can find no evidence of any such allegation. Indeed, the authorities initially seemed happy to leave them in contact with John. What appears to have happened is that the exchanges between the family and social workers became increasingly bitter, all of whom no doubt believed themselves to be in the right. The council cannot comment on individual cases. It will say only that Mr Taylor was sentenced by the High Court after he breached a court order. It cannot comment on John's treatment in care. John seems unhappy. He has apparently asked to be discharged. But his voice can only be heard within the system, a system he seems determined to rebel against. There is a growing campaign on the internet to release Mr Taylor. This has two parts. The first is that a 20-month jail sentence is preposterous when the prisons are so overcrowded that dangerous criminals are being released early. The second is that Mr Taylor was allegedly committed to jail in a secret court. This seems unlikely. But it is an allegation that is made frequently. Legally, you cannot send someone to jail in a secret court. In practice, it is questionable whether a judge sitting in a family court from which press and public are excluded, who declares the court open for a few minutes to pronounce sentence, is really open. This matters, because the view of the legal profession increasingly seems to be that

the less we know the better. The justification for keeping family courts closed, despite the recommendations of the Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, is to protect children's privacy. Yet this argument is no longer confined to the family courts. It is increasingly being trotted out in criminal cases too. In the past month, one court has ruled that the defendants in a witchcraft trial, who were alleged to have done unspeakable things to children, could not be named in case this led to the identification of their victims. Another court banned publication of anything about a mother accused of poisoning her child with salt, in case the information affected her surviving child. The Times has recently succeeded in overturning yet another ruling, that a man who pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children could not be named in case his relatives might suffer. The Court of Appeal found that the man should be named, and that the attempts to restrict the proceedings were invalid. The law must not become a secret process. Some lawyers seem convinced that the media want to identify vulnerable children, but it is always possible to write these stories without doing so. Seeing that justice is done is a fundamental part of law. What is sad is that our elaborate system of child protection, which is designed to put children first, has sometimes become a way of avoiding accountability. The two MPs are right to ask whose interests Mr Taylor's jailing serves. Presumably, the last thing John wants is for his grandfather to be in jail. They are both victims of a system that asks us to take on trust that it knows best. But prison is surely the wrong place for Charles Roy Taylor. -------------------------

How social workers took away our children for 11 months without a shred of evidence
By SUE REID, Daily Mail 9 May 2008 Enjoying the sunshine at a park near their home, the Aston family cling closely to each other as if to make sure they will never be prised apart again. Jodie, a bubbly ten-year-old, entwines her arms around her brother, Luke, who was 12 last Thursday, while both children smile fondly at their parents, Craig and Donna. Yet the happy scene is full of poignancy. Until very recently, this Yorkshire couple were trapped in what a High Court judge described this week as "every parent's nightmare".

For an interminable 11 months, Jodie and Luke were removed from their home because their parents faced accusations from doctors of the most hideous crime imaginable: sexually molesting their own daughter. They were permitted to visit their children only under strict supervision, for just three hours a week. All letters which they sent to Jodie and Luke were vetted by social workers - making them feel like criminals. What's more, they were cruelly ordered not to say "I love you" to either boy or girl. Throughout this ordeal, the couple always protested their innocence and were relieved beyond belief. When Mr Justice Holman cleared them of any wrongdoing. He ordered the children's return, insisting that his ruling be made public so lessons are learned by doctors, social workers and lawyers working in the child protection service. In a landmark judgment, he warned that even two decades after the infamous Cleveland child abuse scandal, parents are still being wrongly accused of molesting their sons and daughters. The Cleveland controversy was Britain's biggest and first mass child abuse scare. In 1987, 121 children were taken into state care in North-East England over five months after abuse was diagnosed on the basis of physical examinations carried out by a controversial paediatrician called Marietta Higgs. The parents were often wrongly condemned - just like the Astons today - without their children being listened to or their family background being taken into account. The doctors in the Eighties had relied on the discredited sign called Reflex Anal Dilatation (RAD), said to indicate sexual abuse. Last year, the controversial sign was condemned as unreliable by the Government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, who admitted that its use had led to mistakes in Cleveland. Everyone hoped the lessons had been learnt from Cleveland. But now the shocking extent of young Jodie Aston's ordeal is becoming clear, it seems that is tragically not the case. Mr Justice Holman said it was inevitable that Jodie was now "emotionally damaged" by her experiences.

After the private hearing at Leeds High Court, he said: "Unless there is clear diagnostic evidence of abuse (for example, the presence of semen or a foreign body internally), purely medical assessments and opinions should not be allowed to predominate. Even 20 years after Cleveland, I wonder if the lessons have fully been learned." The importance of this judgment cannot be overstated. Jodie's father, a 33year-old railway signals' engineer, courageously agreed to talk for the first time about the case. He said: "I hope the judge's words will rein in doctors, and help other parents accused of sexually abusing their children without any real proof." What happened to the Aston family seems incredible in 21st-century England. They are now seeking legal advice in the hope that the General Medical Council, the doctors' disciplinary body, will investigate their case. Yesterday, Leeds' Safeguarding Children's Board launched a review into Jodie's case, saying "all relevant, accurate facts" must be taken into account in future child abuse inquiries. Officials said it was too early to reveal how many other children have been taken into care or even adopted, as a result of suspected sexual abuse over recent years. However, the Mail is aware of two other families in the city who have had their children removed, largely on the basis of the RAD testing technique, yet who insist they are entirely innocent. The Astons' nightmare began when they took Jodie, then aged eight, to Leeds General Infirmary's casualty department on a Monday evening in August 2005. She had scraped her groin on a small wall while playing with friends. She was examined by doctors in Leeds at least eight times. Photographs and videos later shown in court - were taken of her naked body again and again. The girl was referred to the community paediatrics department at the city's St James's University Hospital on the following Thursday. Nothing was found to be amiss after an intimate examination. But two months later, Jodie was changing into her pyjamas after school when her mother saw a spot of blood on her pants. Jodie, who was prone to eczema and had visible raw splits in the skin of her hands and arms, was again taken to casualty before being referred for a second time to the paediatrics unit at St James's. The hospital has a busy child protection team, overseen by the respected paediatric

consultant Dr Christopher Hobbs. Significantly, he is an original pioneer of the RAD technique in this country. In June 1986, just a year before the Cleveland controversy broke, Dr Hobbs and his colleague Jane Wynne introduced young Marietta Higgs to this new way of diagnosing child molestation during a Leeds' medical conference. By looking at and probing a child's bottom, the paediatricians claimed they could see if there was reflex anal dilatation and - therefore - abuse. Dr Higgs enthusiastically embraced the technique, provoking the Cleveland crisis. However, 80 per cent of the "victims" were later returned to their parents because they had not been hurt at all. Since then, the nagging doubts about the technique have grown. Today, it is wellknown that RAD can appear normally and spontaneously in any child. According to some paediatricians - notably an expert named Professor Astrid Hegar from America, where RAD has been abandoned in some states - half of all children who have not been sexually abused show the same "tell-tale" sign when their bottoms are examined. That means, of course, that almost any family taking their child to hospital or the doctor's surgery can be accused of child abuse. Yet in Britain, many child doctors - including Dr Hobbs - rely on the technique as an important piece of many pieces in the jigsaw of diagnosing child abuse. Even before 1987 - at the height of the Cleveland crisis - both Hobbs and Wynne were discovering high numbers of child sex abuse cases in Leeds by using RAD. According to the doctors' research, published in the medical journal The Lancet, 94 boys and 243 girls were diagnosed as sexual abuse victims in a previous two-year period. The paper - still quoted in medical literature - says that eight in ten of the boys, and a quarter of the girls, had "anal signs". Astonishingly, in half of all cases, the abusers were deemed to be the children's natural father and - even more bizarrely - five per cent were women. A quarter of the Leeds adults involved were convicted by the courts. The two doctors wrote at the time: "Sexual abuse is emerging as a major child and mental health problem." So it was against this background - in a city whose medical establishments were at the

centre of the RAD debate - that Jodie Aston was taken by her mother to hospital. It was the first of many visits and, during one, on November 24, 2005, she met Dr Hobbs. Although he did not physically examine Jodie, at the end of the appointment he and a fellow paediatrician said that they suspected child abuse. It was a terrible moment for Jodie's mother, Donna. She says today: "I couldn't believe it. I began to cry. I walked out of there not knowing what to think. Jodie saw that I was quiet, and thought she had done something wrong. I waited in the car park for Craig to come and pick us up. "I asked Jodie if her Daddy had done anything to her. She said "no" and I believed her. But when I got in the car, Craig saw that I had been crying. He asked me what was wrong and I just mumbled something about child abuse because I didn't want to upset Jodie." At home, after the children had gone to bed, Donna had to ask her husband a question that no wife should have to. Craig said he had not touched his daughter. "I was being accused of something worse than murder," Craig said this week. "From that point, we began to watch the children like hawks. "We did not allow them even to go to the shops nearby. Luke said we were treating them like babies," added Donna, 34. However, the family remained under suspicion. Donna was told by the authorities that she was also considered the potential abuser of her daughter. The following March, Jodie faced another assessment with Dr Hobbs. Just a few weeks earlier, she had again come home with a small blood spot on her pants. This time, the paediatrician conducted a physical examination, which included RAD. He wrote in his report afterwards: "I feel that the time has come for me to involve social services, because I am concerned about the possibility that she may have been sexually abused." The family were trapped. The doctors ignored Donna's suggestion that eczema might be the cause of the blood spots. Meanwhile, social workers began visiting the family regularly. Overwhelmed with worry, Craig and Donna were advised to get an independent second medical opinion on Jodie's condition. Therefore, their GP arranged for a

doctor called Ruth Skelton to examine their daughter. This proved to be a disastrous move. Dr Skelton had been trained by Dr Hobbs. As Mr Justice Holman commented in his judgment: "In my view, the selection of her was deeply regrettable. Dr Skelton lacked the complete independence that is required for a second opinion in these sorts of circumstances. "She was being asked to review the previous opinion of someone who was a more senior colleague, then working daily at the same hospital, and who had been her own teacher." It emerged that Dr Skelton had discussed Jodie's case with Dr Hobbs before the socalled independent examination took place in March last year. Dr Skelton concluded that she could spot RAD. According to her report, she said that Jodie had "been sexually abused chronically, over a long period, both anally and probably vaginally . . . I feel that this child is not protected at all at present." Both Jodie and her elder brother, Luke, were taken away from the parents the same day. It was arranged that they would live with their maternal grandparents, aged 77 and 78, three miles away from their home in Armley, a suburb of Leeds. Donna still finds it hard to relate the story as she sits with the children and Craig in the family's neat sitting room. She says: "The social workers came at 9.30am to tell us they wanted to remove Jodie and Luke. It was a Thursday. Jodie and Luke were at school. They never came home for almost a year. "I packed a few things for the first night: toothbrushes, pyjamas, a big bear toy that was Jodie's favourite. Then I had to come home alone. "Craig was in a worse state than me. I thought he was going to harm himself. We woke up in night crying. We hugged each other because it was as if the children were dead." This week, she said: "There were more tears, but we had to cope for the sake of the children. On Christmas Day last year, we were only allowed to see them for one hour." Yet the family's fortunes were changing. Craig's lawyers had instructed the American paediatrician, Professor Hegar, to give her views. She has examined 40,000 children for suspected abuse during a 28-year career. She believes that a family's history - and a host of other factors - are vital

when deciding if a child has been molested. Professor Hegar studied the medical reports and photographs of Jodie. She said: "I believe that the medical examiners in this case have relied heavily on Reflex Anal Dilatation as diagnostic of sexual abuse. "This is a common finding in up to 49 per cent of children who have not been abused. There is no research ... that supports the use of RAD as a sensitive or specific finding for sexual abuse." Professor Hegar also suggested that dermatologists should examine Jodie to find another cause of her bleeding. One skin expert diagnosed that a small split in her skin, caused by eczema, may have produced the suspect spots of blood on Jodie's underwear. Her crucial views were also heard by video link during the hearing into Jodie's case. Afterwards, Mr Justice Holman said Donna and Craig Aston are intelligent, responsible parents. During the hearing, he met both their "bright and well-mannered" children, giving them chocolate biscuits and talking to them for nearly an hour. Jodie told him that no one had touched her at home, or at primary school. Her brother Luke declared, quite spontaneously, that it was "all a big mistake". He added: "We have got the best mum and dad. Why would they abuse my little sister?" Both of the Aston children said they loved their parents dearly and only wanted to go home. Now, at last, thanks to an enlightened judge, they have finally got their wish. But how many other families who suffered similarly disgraceful misdiagnoses, more than 20 years after it had been presumed the lessons of Cleveland had been learnt, are still fighting to clear their names? -------------------------

My baby had cancer but social workers falsely accused me of child abuse and took all three of my children
By SUE REID Daily Mail, 22 February 2008

One November afternoon at just after two o'clock, Louise Mason stood in a hospital ward and kissed her 11-week- old baby goodbye. She had dressed the little girl with care, packing a suitcase of tiny clothes and soft toys. Inside, she had placed a handwritten letter to the foster parents who would look after her in the future. On that day five years ago, Louise felt as though her heart would burst. "I wrote down everything about my daughter," she told me this week. "I said she had colicky attacks at six in the evening, and should be rocked until she slept. I said she needed to be coaxed to take her milk." After writing that sad note, the young mother from Northampton was forced to hand over the baby girl to social workers, who carried her off to her new home. Louise, 32, then returned to her house, with its empty cot, in the seaside city of Derry, Northern Ireland. It must have been one of the loneliest journeys of her life. The baby girl - now aged five - has never been returned to this wholly innocent mother who, because she was wrongly accused of harming her baby, also subsequently had two other children taken away from her. This week, though, a High Court revealed there had been a terrible miscarriage of justice, and ordered that Louise must be reunited with all her children. Furthermore, the judge, Mr Justice Gillon - in an age where children are removed from their parents by family courts sitting in secret - took the extremely unusual step of allowing Louise to be named, and for the tragic details of her case to become public. In a statement he said: "The workings of the family justice system in this case are matters of public interest, and do merit public discussion. Public confidence in the process is necessary, and the emergence of the changing circumstances of this case merits an open discussion." He went on to list the extraordinary catalogue of events which began when, worried out of her mind, Louise took her sickly month- old baby daughter to her GP, begging for help. These shocking details shed light on a family justice system normally hidden from

view. Of course, there are parents who harm their children and deserve the full punishment of the law. But in the family courts, thousands of children are removed from their parents to adoption or foster care in deeply dubious hearings which never become public. If anyone speaks about the details - to a neighbour, to a friend, to a relative - they are in contempt of court. Crucially, the courts' culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies, or fabricates notes, or a doctor makes a mistake, then no one finds out, and there is no retribution. It is only because Louise was charged with a criminal offence in an open and public court - like other innocent mothers wrongly accused of infanticide, such as Angela Cannings and the late Sally Clark - that her harrowing story can be heard. Louise was born in Northampton, the youngest of three. Her father had a plastering business, and her mother raised a close, caring family. By the time she was in her 20s, Louise was running a successful restaurant. A few years later, she met her boyfriend, who came from Derry, and the couple had a baby. They moved to Northern Ireland to set up home. Louise says now: "I came here in 2001, thinking Derry was the perfect place for children to grow up." The couple had a second baby - another girl, born a healthy 7lb. But then she and her partner split up, leaving Louise a single mother. "I was quite able to cope with the toddler and the baby, who was very placid," explains Louise. "I was a full-time mother and proud of it." Then came the bombshell. One Saturday, when the baby was just four weeks old, Louise noticed that she was looking very ill, as though she was about to collapse. In fact, it is now known that without medical care she would have died within an hour. "I rushed my daughter around to our local doctor, who immediately rang the Derry

hospital. I hurried there with this little bundle in my arms. "The baby was taken off me in the children's ward. I next saw her five hours later, at 7pm. "One of the doctors then sat me down and said: 'It is touch and go'" The team mentioned right away that it might be cancer. I remember that as though it were yesterday," says Louise, crying this week at the memory. "The next morning, they again said cancer was suspected." A day later, on the Sunday, the baby was taken by ambulance to the Royal Belfast hospital 60 miles away. She had a blood transfusion and tests. By the Tuesday, three days after the emergency admission, Louise was hoping that she would get a proper diagnosis. But further investigation had showed that the left kidney and the area around it was swollen, and among medical staff there was a wide variety of opinion about the cause. Before long, doctors became highly suspicious that this was, in fact, caused by an injury. Louise was called into a room and confronted by a doctor. "He asked me if I had done anything to hurt my baby. He said he had called the social services and the police. I promised him I had done nothing to my child." Her words fell on deaf ears. Back home, her elder daughter, who was being cared for by a neighbour, was collected by social workers and taken into foster care. Yet still the trusting Louise thought it would all be sorted out in a few days. How wrong she was. Seven weeks later, on November 15, 2002, the police contacted her. "They asked me to attend the police station for an interview under caution. They said I was suspected of grievous bodily harm with intent." The interview dragged on. At lunchtime, Louise was put in a cell. She was distraught. "I was frozen with fright," she recalls. "I kept telling them that there was no bruising or redness found on the baby, so how

could I have hurt her?" Four days later, worse news followed: her baby daughter was to be taken into foster care, too. At the hospital, she was told by social workers to get the 11-week- old baby she was accused of harming ready. Her fingers trembling, Louise dressed her baby and kissed her goodbye. From then on, she was allowed to see her children at a special supervised centre for only four-and-a-half hours a week. They were delivered to the centre from their foster homes by social workers, and then taken away again. "The eldest one could remember me," says Louise, "but I had hardly had a chance to bond with the new baby before she was taken from me." All the time, Louise faced a barrage of accusations. The authorities claimed that she was a potential killer. A leading member of the social work team told her: "I do not think you are safe to be left in a room alone with any boy or girl." In January 2004 - a little over year later - a formal application to take the children into care was made in the family division of the Northern Ireland High Court in Belfast. The medical evidence given by five doctors from the hospitals was damning. They said Louise had deliberately hurt the baby girl with great force. "It was then that they began to make noises about adoption,' says Louise. 'My legal team were fighting hard, but it was a battle we could not win because we did not have the medical evidence." The children remained with their foster parents. That autumn, Louise was brought before a criminal court in Derry facing two charges of causing grievous bodily harm to the baby girl. It was only then that anyone listened to her. In an emotional outburst, she blurted out to the jury that she wanted to take a lie detector test to prove that she had done nothing wrong. It was the turning point. The

jury believed her, and in November 2004 she was acquitted of the charges. However, her children remained in care. Meanwhile, the story of the mother begging for a lie detector test was reported in the local Press. By chance, the consultant radiologist who had treated Louise's baby girl at the local hospital on the very first day she was brought in, read the article and was appalled. He remembered the case and the wide divergence of medical opinion, yet had never known that Louise was under suspicion or that she was to have been prosecuted. He was convinced then that the child was suffering from a rare form of cancer of the left kidney, called neuroblastoma, which could have caused the bleeding. Dr D - as he was called in Mr Justice Gillon's judgment this week - contacted Louise's solicitor and offered to help clear her name. "It was a miracle," Louise told me. "That doctor was my guardian angel. The last years have been very hard for me. I was pilloried. It felt like torture having my children taken from me." Even though she had been acquitted, the social workers appeared to ignore the verdict. But Dr D told Louise's solicitor that he was struck by the "power" of her request to the jury to have a lie detector test. He offered to help, suggesting that a team of independent paediatricians, including experts on kidneys, cancer and non- accidental injury, should be asked to give their own opinions on the findings of the five hospital doctors. Significantly, the independent experts thought that the baby's internal bleeding had occurred naturally. And when their testimony was produced by Louise's lawyers at a Court of Appeal hearing, the judges quashed the family court rulings. As a result, in June last year the Foyle Health and Social Services Trust, which covers Derry, said it no longer intended to pursue their action to keep Louise's children in care or have them adopted. It was an almighty climbdown. By then, however, another tragedy had happened on the say-so of the social workers. In 2005, a year after she had been acquitted, Louise had became pregnant for a third

time. She is reluctant to talk about the father, or name him, although they are no longer together - but at Christmas time, when she was heavily pregnant, the social workers called and told her they planned to take the latest addition away from her at birth. "I couldn't believe my ears," says Louise. "I had been declared not guilty in a criminal court - yet they still had both my children and were wanting my new baby. It was torture." The baby was born early in 2006. True to their word, Louise had just given birth and was trying to breastfeed when the social workers arrived at Altnagelvin Hospital, Derry. The nurses, on the instructions of the social workers, took the newborn baby away to safety in another ward while Louise's solicitor remonstrated with them that it was cruel to do such a thing. It was five hours before the baby was returned to Louise in the maternity unit. Ten days later, when she was about to leave hospital, the social workers returned and seized the child, placing the baby with foster parents. Only recently - following the collapse of the Social Services Trust case - has Louise been given back the baby, and her eldest child, too. She has missed a whole chunk of their early years. But perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the little girl who was so sick as a baby may never return home again. She has known no mother or father apart from her foster parents, and has bonded with them very closely. Although she has now recovered - significantly, it was a form of cancer that can go into remission of its own accord, without the need for surgery or chemotherapy - her left kidney does not function normally. But she is happy with the couple whom she calls her Mummy and Daddy. Recently, as part of a phased plan to reunite her permanently with her natural family, she came back to stay with Louise for a night.

"She cried terribly for her foster parents all the evening - it made us all unhappy," says Louise, sadly. "She knows me, but will only call me Mummy Louise. It breaks me into pieces. "She may never come home and live with me again because she wants to be with the only people she has ever recognised as her parents. It may be cruel to take her back now." It is, by any standards, a tragic indictment of the child protection system. -------------------------

What do our MPs who represent us in parliament think about all this?
Prime Minister Responds on Adoption Q6. [163661] John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): In England in 2006, 4,160 children under five were taken into care and more than 60 per cent. of them 2,490were adopted. However, in Scotland 574 left care and 373, roughly 64 per cent., went home to their parents. Can the Prime Minister explain why in England children under five who leave care get adopted, while in Scotland they go home to their parents? The Prime Minister: Social work legislation in the two countries is, of course, different. I shall look at the figures that the hon. Gentleman has put before me. But as is known, we have made strenuous efforts to try to ensure that children in difficulty are given the proper upbringing, whether that is by returning to their parents or, where it is essential, by being fostered or adopted. I will continue to look at the matter, but the hon. Gentleman has to understand that social work practice in the two countries is different. This does go to the nub of the issue. What is so different between parents in England and parents in Scotland that means that it is "essential" for under 5s to get adopted in England, but they can go home to their parents in Scotland?

Early Day Motions

EDMs are motions in parliament. Normally they don't get debated. However, they are a sort of petition signed only by Members of Parliament. You can ask your MP to sign an EDM. You need to say which number EDM it is. MPs who are members of the government cannot sign EDMs, but you can ask them to write a letter to the minister in support of the EDM.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMByMember.aspx? MID=4735&SESSION=891

EDM 124
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34214&SESSION=891 That this House notes that local authorities and their staff are incentivised to ensure that children are adopted; is concerned about increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted; and calls urgently for effective scrutiny of care proceedings to stop this from happening.

EDM125
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34215&SESSION=891

That this House believes that mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed as this is in the interests of the long-term health of babies; recognises that for newborn babies this means breastfeeding on demand; further believes that newborn babies in care should also be breastfed on demand where this does not result in any risk to the baby; and calls for the Government to introduce guidelines to ensure that facilities are provided to ensure that newborn babies can be breastfed on demand. EDM 126
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34216&SESSION=891

That this House notes the comments of a senior social worker that meetings have been held during which solicitors acting for parents have discussed how to undermine the cases of their clients; further notes that there are many odd cases in which solicitors fail to oppose care proceedings or accept that the section 31 threshold has been met notwithstanding the opposition of their clients; recognises that reporting and obtaining the investigation of such behaviour outwith parliamentary proceedings remains a contempt of court for hon. Members; and asks the Solicitors Regulatory Authority to review the implementation of the new solicitors' code of conduct and how this relates to conflicts of interest in the Family Court.
EDM127

To sack your solicitor and your barrister just download form N434 !
N434 - Notice of change of solicitor (Court Service) Download Form N434, Notice of change of solicitor, Court Service Forms, Administrative Court. Local solicitors and barristers often already enjoy a close and friendly "working relationship" with the local authority.These legal aid lawyers are widely known in the trade as "PROFESSIONAL LOSERS !" and justifiably so as they make a point of losing every single case they undertake when opposing social services! You cannot

win if you have "enemies in your own camp" so if your lawyers start conceding every point to the opposition and stop you from saying anything in your own defence ,then be brave! Get rid of them ! In many courts if you represent yourself you can get technical help with documents etc from the PSU (PERSONAL SUPPORT UNIT).In London they are to be found in room M104,Royal Courts of Justice,the Strand tel 02079477701/7703 or 4th floor Room 408,first avenue house,high holburn, Principal Registry of the Family Division Tel 02079477737.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34217&SESSION=891 That this House regrets the Government's proposals to retain secrecy within the family courts; believes that this secrecy permeates bad practice throughout the whole system of children services; feels that it is possible to protect the identity of the child while allowing parents to talk and seek advice publicly about their treatment in the family courts, and that professional witnesses should be uniquely identified to monitor consistency; further believes that every case should have an anonymised judgement handed to the parents that they can discuss publicly; and calls on the Government to recognise that there are very serious problems in the system that have been postponed rather than resolved by the limited proposals contained within the consultation document. EDM128 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34218&SESSION=891 That this House notes that in an email dated 24th October 2000, John Radford, Doncaster's then Director of Public Health, described the issue of research on babies by Dr David Southall at Doncaster Hospital in the late 1980s as `potentially a hot potato as to my recall the intervention resulted in increased deaths and didn't have proper consent'; expresses concern that the details of this research and its outcomes have been covered up by the health authorities; expresses particular concern that the research protocol specifically required that no action be taken to prevent cot death in the children selected until sufficient data had been collected; notes that the inquiry into CNEP ignored CNEP in Doncaster; and calls for a public inquiry into this and other research managed by Dr Southall to identify why the checks and balances in the system failed. EDM129 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34219&SESSION=891 That this House notes that it is common practice for a firm of solicitors to perform outsourced work for a local authority and also to represent parents when parties in cases against the same local authority; notes and is surprised that this conflict of interest is acceptable under the professional conduct rules; understands that some parents would be surprised to find that this is the case; and calls for the Law Society to require that parents be asked to confirm in writing that they recognise that the firm they are instructing is conflicted in this way as part of the client engagement process. EDM130 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx? EDMID=34220&SESSION=891 That this House notes that from time to time the advice given by an expert appointed by one party to a

court case is used to permit the exclusion of capacity of a further party to that case and then the Official Solicitor is brought in to act on behalf of the latter party; believes that it is an unacceptable conflict of interest; and calls, notwithstanding the duty of experts to the court, for the Government to introduce legislation to prevent this from occurring.

I try to help parents who are desperately trying to recover or at least make contact either with their children or worse still with "newborn babies" snatched by social services from mothers that have never caused them harm.Those social workers who snatch, and those lawyers, "experts" and especially the "ESTABLISHMENT JUDGES" who combine to help them should all be sent to prison for "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY" for a very long time! I will explain and justify this later on. They can be beaten, but only if you fight from start to finish as the following shows! Damages win for Tim and Gina Williams - falsely suspected of abusing their children
The Times, Dec 23, 2008 by Simon de Bruxelles

A couple whose three children spent two years in care because social workers wrongly believed that they were at risk of abuse have been awarded a six-figure sum in compensation. Tim and Gina Williamss son and two daughters were taken from them and placed with separate foster families. The couple, from Newport, South Wales, received an undisclosed sum yesterday in an agreed settlement at the High Court in Cardiff and were given a full written apology from Newport City Council. The court was told that there had never been any evidence that the children, now aged 14, 11 and 9, had been abused. As a result of the social workers actions, the Williams missed their childrens birthdays, Christmases and their first days in new schools. A judge completely exonerated them at the High Court in October 2006 and the children were returned to them. The couple, who waived their right to anonymity, began a compensation claim against Newport City Council and Royal Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust soon after.

Robin Tolson, QC, for the couple, said: This settlement brings closure, at least of a kind, for Tim and Gina Williams and their children. The effect of what happened will continue to be felt for a long time but at least this now marks the end of four years spent fighting for their children and their rights before the court. Mr Williams, 39, and two of his children sat at the back of the court during the brief hearing. In August 2004 Mr Williams called the police after finding his youngest daughter naked from the waist down with an 11-year-old friend. The girl was taken to hospital for a precautionary check-up and the doctor who carried out the examination claimed to have found evidence of longstanding abuse but by an adult, not an 11-year-old. Mr Williams and his wife were told that they were under suspicion and the children were taken into care. A second doctor confirmed the evidence of abuse and the couple were restricted to supervised weekly visits to their children. There were exonerated after a US expert in child abuse examined the evidence and disputed the claims by the British doctors, who subsequently accepted that they had been mistaken. The council conceded that the children should never have been taken from their parents on the basis of the evidence. Giving his judgment, Judge Crispin Masterman said that the childrens names were never put on the child protection register and it was simply decided to remove them from the family home. He said that the criticisms were coupled with an acknowledgment that all professionals involved were acting for the good of the children. It is undoubtedly true that social services departments have in recent years operated with inadequate resources and under immense stress and run the risk of attracting equal criticism whether they remove a child or whether they do not. A Newport council representative said: A settlement has now been reached which will support the childrens future. The wellbeing of the children has remained paramount throughout this case. While the local authority has offered sincere apologies to the family, our priority was always the safety of the children. The court concluded that the council acted in good faith given the strength of the medical evidence presented. The council, together with other members of Newport safeguarding children board, has embraced the recommendations of the multi-agency review.

Under the terms of the settlement, the family are banned from talking about it. _____ June 22 2007 Dear Ian, THANK YOU SO MUCH You would not believe it but social services actually want nothing to do with us! Para 49 in the case outline they actually said " Should the Court deem it in Tess's best interest to be rehabilitated to her parents care, the local Authority do not feel that this is a case where they are able to share parental responsibility with the parents or to carry out their duties under an interim care order effectively due to the lack of co-operation from the parents. The social worker actually CONGRATULATED me saying that Andy and I were unique! She said " you have fought your corner and fought it well." This was because of your advise. Fight like a tiger you said, well it would appear that they are no match for Tigers Ian! THANK YOU once again. Sue, Andy and Family

Sue & Tess

Dear Ian, we hope you are well,we took your advice an left for Eire ,an have a beautiful baby son named shay ,who is now 2 months old, he has come to no harm whatsoever and is highly unlikely to suffer any emotional abuse as ss stated,as we are both intelligent caring loving well balanced individuals, it appeared that Bury ss were allowing us to keep our son, however this all changed once i made contact with my local mp,the amusing thing is we didnt actually get to eire untill Shay was 1 week old,we lied through our back teeth to get him out of the uk hospital ,and it worked a treat,its amazing how the nhs panic when threatened with a lawsuit by two new age travellers,the bad news is they now appear to be going after my kids from a previous relationship but they havent a leg to stand on,in any case they would be moved to ireland at the first sign of any court action.We fully intend to make public our situation once things have cooled a little,removing kids for a likelihood of emotional abuse should be a criminal offence could you imagine the consequences if the criminal courts locked people up for a likelihood they may commit crime,the government would be bankrupt with compensation claims.babys removed from parents for eighteen years of there lives,murderers only serve half of a 30 year sentence any way take care and thanks for your advice regards Mr A Galligan Miss Tracey Mcgee

From Catherine Sara Dear Ian, I am posting this as asked by members whom you have worked day and night to help in every way possible. I know you are very modest and expect nothing in return for all your help. Day and night you answer the call. If only all Social Workers, Lawyers, Judges, etc were as dedicated to the higher good as you are, Then oh what a world we would have of happiness and joy and light for ALL OF US. May your light shine ever brighter and may all our lights shine like beacons until all our lights touch and spread to cover OUR MOTHER ....EARTH. THE ONE MOTHER WE ALL SHARE. Thank you Ian. We salute you. All it takes for evil to succeed is that good people do nothing. Hello Ian, I know that so many parents contact you everyday and as a matter of natural fact, you might not remember everyone that has contacted you. I have contacted you several times with my husband and your genuine and honest advise has helped us. we had a social service issue in which our children were all taken, after a very lenghty court battle and your numerous advise, we won them in a civil high court, they dragged us to a criminal Court, both of us were charged, I was charged with child neglect and abandonment (as they met my 12 year old daughter and her siblings home alone and a family friend was outside my house who was keeping eye on them) I was only away for 5 to 10 minutes, that was the big issue, police was called,all the children were taken and they refused to acknowladge the presence of our family friend, claiming that he was not inside the house. my husband was charged with our younger children's abduction from care. In the Criminal Court, they tried to force me to plead guilty to their charges on the ground that they will drop my husband's charges, even my barrister encouraged me to do so. I nearly did, it was your advise that encouraged me not to do that, when I refused, both trials went ahead, I and my Husband's, they manufactured so many lies upon lies in order to find both of us guilty and come back for the children, after a two

week trial, the jury found both of us 'NOT GUILTY', the judge commented that: the case has been dealt with in a civil Court and that there is no criminal aspect or intent in it, 5 to 10 minutes is not enough for any mother to be guilty of child neglect and abandonment. In my husband's case, they did not have any order when they took the children and that our children were not subject to any care order when my husband took them from the school. Our case is finally over. May I use this opportunity to say a very Big Thankyou, You have really helped us a lot, if not for your kind advise, we would have lost our children just like that, the advises you gave us, our own lawyers could not even give it to us, Thankyou so many times. The contact details are as follows,We will help and advise any other parents with similar problems.
ndukaonuka@yahoo.com,

our telephone numbers for me or my husband are, 07503583592, 07963999116. ________________________________________ Hi Ian Dave and myself would like you to know all the mothers and people we have spoken too. All agree that you are one of the few genuien persons we all know. I dont think you quite realise the hope and the determination that you give to us when we feel like giving up you have a certain power that gives us all insperation to keep fighting you are very special to us all, and we won,t forget you I will still be contacting you when this is all over with. I will even bring Connor to see you and tell him of all your support and insperation that you gave to us I will tell him you are the main man the one we first found when you was snatched from our arms. Know this Ian because it is the truth when I say to you that you live up to more than our exspectations your an angle a bright light in a very dark wicked world showing everyone the truth about the ss,lawyers, and the evil judges we were all lost until you showed us the way to fight. Sharon xx

Dear Ian I thought I should just write to you to advise you that after great effort on my part and after following the excellent advice you gave me I can now report that my daughter has been returned to my care. I cannot thank you enough for the advice you gave me and which I took. It was from your advice that I decided to stand up for myself and sought advice from another solicitor who was willing to give me her assurance that she would fight my case every step of the way. Needless to say I had my day in court and although the final hearing is still to happen in July 08 my daughter has been returned to me and the care plan is for reunification. Thank you so much. Please keep up the good work. If you would like the name of the solicitor I used I would be happy to pass it on to you so that others may take advantage of having good legal representation in court. Kind regards and God bless you. Mandy Price
Good Morning Ian, This a little update, Since we have been recording the Social Workers and they keep refusing to come into our home, Our Solicitors have been informed by them that they will no longer be seeking a supervision order, Which I have you to thank for all your help and support, Thank You Friend! I would also like to let you know last night i tore Stand Together down and redone it with a totally cool new look and feel about the website, Now all we want to do is Start to rebuild our life's back, And use our website to help and support other family's That are going through what we went through and to help support other websites Please have a look and tell me what you think www.stand-together.co.uk Regards

Court orders return of new baby A teenage mother has been reunited with her baby after the child was taken by social services without a court order. The boy was taken two hours after he was born to the 18-year-old, who had just

left the care of Nottingham social services. Hours later, Mr Justice Munby at the High Court said no baby could be removed "as the result of a decision taken by officials in some room". The woman's solicitor Stuart Luke said she would lodge a claim for damages. 'Birth plan' He said she faced the prospect of "an application by the local authority social services for an interim care order, which will be vigorously contested". Mr Justice Munby said that without the appropriate order and given that the mother was still in hospital, mother and child should be reunited. Describing the situation as "most unfortunate", he said officials involved in the case "should have known better". The boy was born healthy and taken from his mother about two hours after his birth without an order having been made. Mr Luke, from the firm Bhatia Best, said: "Mother and child were reunited 46 minutes after Mr Justice Munby's order at 1209 (GMT)." Hospital staff were apparently shown a "birth plan" prepared by local authority social services. 'Unfortunate removal' The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood and suffered from mental health problems, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed without supervision by social workers. The judge said the removal of a child could only be lawful if a police constable was taking action to protect a child, or there was a court order in place. Mr Luke said the mother would be making a claim for damages against social services officials "arising out of the unfortunate removal of her child without lawful authority shortly after his birth". The judge ordered the council to prepare a comprehensive plan setting out their proposals to assist the mother as she had recently left local authority care, by no

later than 8 February. --------------

Baby 'snatched' from mother minutes after birth is ordered BACK into foster care
By DAVID WILKES Daily Mail, 2nd February 2008 A mother who had her baby son taken illegally by social workers wept yesterday as a court ordered he should be put in care after all. The 18-year-old, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, broke down in tears and had to be supported by two relatives as she received the devastating news. It has been a three-day rollercoaster for the young mother. Her son, known as Baby G for legal reasons,was snatched from her in hospital by social services two hours after birth. Family courts decide on children's lives behind closed doors Then the infant was returned to her later that day after a High Court judge ruled the officials had acted illegally because they did not have a court order. Yesterday, after a further hearing before the Family Proceedings Court over two days, district judge Richard Inglis upheld an application by Nottingham council for an interim care order. The mother attended the behindcloseddoors hearing yesterday but did not give evidence. "It has been a thoroughly traumatic few days for her and she is devastated and drained," a friend said afterwards. The case highlights the lack of transparency in the family courts, with the reasons behind the decision will not be revealed to the public. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who campaigns for greater openness in the system, said: "If they are going to take such draconian action as to separate a newborn baby from its mother, they should be willing to justify it in the open. "What worries me most about these types of cases is they do not explain what they

are doing or why. "There are other options, like a mother and child foster placement or an assessment centre so that they do not have to be separated. "But they almost seem to revel in separating newborn children from their mothers in this country." Baby G was born in hospital in Nottingham at 2am on Wednesday and social services took him around 4am. His mother, who has mental health problems, has just left local authority care. The baby was taken after staff at the hospital were shown a "birth plan" that was prepared by social workers. The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood, was to be separated from the child, and no contact would be allowed without supervision by social workers. Mr Justice Munby made an order in the High Court in London that the baby should be returned to his mother, which he duly was. In his ruling, he said that "on the face of it" social services officials had acted unlawfully because they had not obtained a court order. Giving his decision at the Family Proceedings Court in Nottingham yesterday, Judge Inglis said: "The court has decided that the welfare of G requires that he lives in local authority foster care on an interim basis. "His mother will have frequent periods of contact with him. "When further inquiries have been made the court expects to be in a better position later this year to make a decision about who should care for G." Afterwards, Nottingham council said that the interim care order "enables the council to provide appropriate protection for the baby, whilst continuing to support the mother, who is also our concern". It added: "The council and a range of other partner agencies had enough concern for the baby's welfare during the pregnancy to believe that action would be needed to protect the baby when it was born." The decision was made at a case conference in December 2007 at which the mother

and her legal representative were present, the council said. "The law does not allow application for a court order before birth. The protection plan made in advance included the intention to apply for a care order immediately following the birth of this baby." Margaret McGlade, chairman of Nottingham's safeguarding children board, said there will be a review of "the communications between all parties, particularly following the baby's birth to see if there are any lessons to be learned". Last night the mother's solicitors, Bhatia Best, said they are considering a renewed application to the High Court under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Home - Introduction - Reforms - Get Your Children Back - The Times Online Campaign 2008 Statistics - Newborn Babies Taken - Typical Case Scenarios - Why Do They Do It? - Contacts Top | Home | Contact | Search | Site Map | Links | Copyright 2005